Members: Graeme Docherty Peter O’Donnell Mrs Maureen Reid v Represented by: Ms J Merchant Solicitor Department of Work and Pensions — 2018

The claimant, Mrs Maureen Reid, worked for the Department of Work and Pensions from 4 October 1993 until her dismissal with effect from 5 December 2016. The respondent accepted that she was a disabled person by reason of the cumulative effect of her physical impairments. The tribunal found that she went off sick on 12 August 2016, first with cellulitis, then after shoulder surgery and then following the diagnosis of blood clots on both lungs, and that she remained unfit for work when dismissed and after her appeal was rejected on 16 January 2017.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the reason was SOSR and held that the real reason was capability. It accepted that the employer's focus was the claimant's health and prospects of returning to work. The tribunal found that the respondent had followed its attendance management process, had held meetings with the claimant, had obtained occupational health input, and had given her time to discuss proposed adjustments with her GP. It concluded that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996.

On the disability discrimination complaint, the respondent conceded that the dismissal was unfavourable treatment arising from something connected with disability, so the tribunal considered justification under section 15 Equality Act 2010. It found that the respondent's aim of providing an efficient and effective benefits service was legitimate, and that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim because the claimant had been absent for almost four months, had no clear return date, and her team could not be backfilled with temporary or agency cover. The tribunal therefore dismissed the s.15 complaint.

The tribunal also rejected the reasonable adjustments complaint under section 20 Equality Act 2010. It accepted that the attendance management process placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but found that the respondent was willing to implement the adjustments discussed once she was fit to return to work. The tribunal held that the proposed adjustments would not have removed the disadvantage of dismissal because the claimant was not medically fit to work at the date of dismissal or appeal, and the evidence did not show that putting the adjustments in place earlier would have enabled an earlier return. The claim was dismissed in its entirety and no award was made.