Mr A Ross, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a disability for Equality Act purposes, consisting of mixed cluster B personality disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder. It found that she began work as a prison officer in April 2018, was moved onto restricted duties after occupational health input, later went onto special leave, and was eventually offered an administrative role at Stirling House which she refused. A psychologist's report in March 2019 recommended a closely supervised and gradual return, but the tribunal treated those recommendations as tentative and noted the claimant's own evidence at the June 2019 meeting that she was not fit to return to work and expected it could take about two years before she was well again.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed. The tribunal held that the respondent had applied a PCP requiring the claimant to perform her full prison officer role, and that this placed her at a substantial disadvantage because she could not do that work and was eventually dismissed. However, it found the proposed adjustments were not reasonable in the prison environment. In particular, it accepted the respondent's evidence that providing highly detailed written instructions for unpredictable prison situations and allocating a permanent buddy would be impracticable, costly, and not a realistic way to ensure safety. It also found there was considerable doubt that the proposed steps would in any event enable the claimant to work safely as a prison officer, especially given her difficulties with control and restraint training.

The section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the dismissal was because of the claimant's vulnerability or unsuitability for prisoner-facing work, which arose in consequence of her disability, and that her refusal of an administrative regrade was not the relevant reason at that stage of the analysis. It nevertheless held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of good order and discipline in the prison. The tribunal also found there was no realistic prospect that further medical evidence obtained in November 2019 would have differed materially from the March 2019 report, and it noted that the claimant had already been offered a non-prisoner-facing role with pay protection but had declined it.