Miss Rehanna Bernard v London Borough of Brent — 2022

The respondent accepted, and the tribunal found, that the claimant was disabled at the material times by type 1 diabetes and consequential visual impairment. The claimant was employed as a Contact Worker during a probationary period, and the tribunal found that driving children to and from contact sessions was an essential part of the role.

The direct discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal found the named comparator was not in materially similar circumstances because she had passed probation and had longer service. It also found that a hypothetical probationary employee unable to drive, with a high absence rate and no immediate prospect of remedying the position, would probably also have had their employment terminated at the probation review.

The tribunal found that terminating employment was unfavourable treatment connected with matters arising from disability, but held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of safeguarding vulnerable children and running a functional contact service. It found that the respondent had made adjustments including taxis, local contacts, flexibility around public transport and reallocation of work, but accepted that these were not sustainable as ongoing arrangements.

For indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found the driving requirement put the claimant at a disadvantage, but held that the requirement was integral to the Contact Worker role and proportionate. It also held that providing taxis or work not involving driving was not reasonable on an ongoing or longer-term basis, given the cost, disruption, availability of suitable work and impact on colleagues.