Ms M Dworak v RyanAir Ltd — 2019

The claimant worked for Ryanair from 2004 and became an employee in July 2006, later becoming a Customer Services Supervisor in April 2013. The tribunal found that she had symptoms from around 2015, was admitted to hospital in Poland in July 2017, and was diagnosed with a benign brain tumour. It held that she was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 from 2 October 2017 until the termination of her employment on 9 August 2018.

The tribunal found that the respondent had constructive knowledge of the disability from 13 July 2017 and actual knowledge by 2 October 2017, when detailed medical records were sent to HR. By 1 November 2017, when the claimant produced a fit note saying she may be fit for work with a phased return, altered hours and amended duties, the duty to make reasonable adjustments had arisen. The tribunal found that the respondent should then have engaged in a proper dialogue with the claimant and, if necessary, obtained occupational health advice.

The PCPs identified were requiring the claimant to perform her full flying role, paying discretionary sick pay only until 6 January 2018, and paying sick pay only until 23 January 2018. The tribunal found that these PCPs placed her at a substantial disadvantage because she could not return to work in her contracted role and suffered financial loss when sick pay ended. It held that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal found that a number of alternatives were not properly considered or were considered only too late, including temporary cash office support work, administrative duties, Base Supervisor duties without flying, Flight Operations Assistant roles with shorter shifts and breaks, and some Dublin-based roles that the tribunal considered could have been relocated to Stansted. It also found that the respondent should not have required the claimant to apply through open competition for roles where adjustments were needed, and that the respondent did not meaningfully engage with the adjustment options that were available.

The claimant resigned on 9 August 2018 after grievance and appeal steps and after obtaining other employment. The tribunal held that she resigned because of the respondent's continuous failure to provide work and the discriminatory treatment found, that she had not affirmed the contract, and that she was constructively dismissed in breach of section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 and as a consequence of the disability discrimination. This was a liability judgment only and the case was listed for a remedy hearing; no compensation figures were set in this decision.