Mr. P. Powlesland, counsel. For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant was a long-serving cabin crew member who had stage 4 metastatic breast cancer, which the respondent accepted was a disability. After a period of sickness absence she was placed on ground duties and referred through British Airways Health Service under the respondent's medical incapacity process, with the central question being whether she could safely return to her contractual flying role.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that Ms Taylor's decision on 23 November 2017 to give notice of dismissal was outside the reasonable range of responses because the medical information was not yet complete. However, it found that the later process cured that defect. Dr Badea's report was considered by BAHS, an aviation medicine team unanimously concluded the claimant was unfit to return to flying because of the risk of incapacitation, the claimant was allowed to ask questions and produce further medical letters, and the appeal was considered by Ms Murray. Looking at the process as a whole, the tribunal held that the dismissal was fair and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

On section 15 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found that the dismissal was because of the future risk of incapacitation, which arose in consequence of the claimant's disability, rather than because of the length of her sickness absence. It accepted the respondent's legitimate aim of employing staff who could perform a safety-critical cabin crew role and of protecting crew and passengers. The tribunal held that dismissal was a proportionate response in the circumstances, including because the respondent had a process for considering alternative employment and the claimant did not fully engage with that process.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the respondent had applied a requirement to be free of any future risk of incapacitation. It held that the relevant PCPs were the requirement for the risk of future incapacitation to be at an acceptable level and the requirement to return to full contractual duties. The tribunal accepted that those PCPs disadvantaged the claimant, but it found that the suggested adjustments were not reasonable. It was not reasonable to keep the claimant on ground duties until there had been a five-year period without recurrence, to give her a trial period in flying duties, or to extend ground duties for a further 6 to 12 months. The claims were dismissed.