Claimant v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2024

The claimant, a prison officer, was dismissed for medical inefficiency after a period of continuous sickness absence connected with Complex PTSD. The respondent conceded disability. The tribunal found that at the final attendance review meeting the claimant remained unfit for work in any capacity, with no prospect of a return within less than three to six months at best, and that the respondent had adequate medical information and had consulted her sufficiently.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that there were procedural flaws, including the absence of an occupational health physician report within the precise policy requirement and some imperfect aspects of the appeal. It found those flaws did not materially affect the fairness of the process or the decision, and that dismissal after nearly 10 months' absence was within the range of reasonable responses given the prison's staffing and operational constraints.

The direct disability discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found no basis to conclude that a hypothetical comparator with the same absence and prognosis would have been treated more favourably. The section 15 claim failed because the tribunal found the dismissal was justified by legitimate aims including absence management, maintaining an effective workforce and service, and managing public resources. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found the PCPs did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage at the material time; it also considered that indefinite home working or suspension of absence management consequences would not have been reasonable adjustments in the circumstances.