Mr D Sharp v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2026

Mr Sharp had worked within His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service since 27 March 2000 and had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The respondent accepted that the condition was a disability, that it knew of the disability, and that Mr Sharp could not undertake deployments involving exposure to potentially violent incidents. His substantive Response Team Manager role and the full Inspectorate Manager role included operational deployment duties.

The Tribunal upheld the reasonable-adjustments complaint concerning the refusal, from 16 May 2024, to allow Mr Sharp to remain an Inspectorate Manager without responding to potentially violent incidents. He had performed a modified version of that role for a substantial period. Although there would logically have been some effect on colleagues, the Tribunal found no evidence that it created real pressure or a sufficiently significant operational impact to make the arrangement unsustainable. It therefore found the adjustment practicable, compatible with continued performance of the role and reasonable. The complaint was presented outside the primary time limit, but the Tribunal granted a just and equitable extension because of the limited prejudice to the respondent, the related issues requiring determination in the other claims and the continuing discussions about the adjustment.

The remaining reasonable-adjustments complaints were dismissed. Dog handler and dog section manager positions would not have removed the disadvantage because they were operational roles involving potential exposure to violence. No vacant area intelligence position was identified, and the proposed role was not defined sufficiently for the Tribunal to find that offering or creating it was possible or reasonable. Treating an adjusted Inspectorate Manager position as an alternative role duplicated the adjustment that the Tribunal had already found reasonable.

The s.15 Equality Act 2010 complaint succeeded. The respondent accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment and that Mr Sharp was dismissed because of matters arising from his disability, including his inability to perform all operational duties and his sickness absence. Although the stated aims were accepted as legitimate, the Tribunal found that dismissal was not an appropriate and reasonably necessary means of achieving them. The decision-makers had not assessed the actual effect of the restriction on deployments or colleagues, and the evidence did not establish a material operational impact. Continuing the adjusted Inspectorate Manager role was a less discriminatory measure that could have supported sustained attendance and retained the work Mr Sharp could perform.

The respondent established that the principal reason for dismissal was capability due to ill health. The Tribunal found that it genuinely believed Mr Sharp could not perform all duties, consulted him adequately, obtained sufficient medical information and adequately considered other available redeployment options. However, dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses because the adjusted Inspectorate Manager role was a reasonable alternative, and the respondent had not established a detrimental or disruptive impact sufficient to justify dismissing him without implementing and monitoring that adjustment. The unfair-dismissal complaint was therefore upheld.