J Smillie & G McKay Mr R Scott v ’s Mother Lay Representative Tillicoultry Quarries Limited — 2025

The claimant brought Equality Act 2010 complaints only, relying on disability arising from epilepsy. The tribunal accepted the respondent knew of that disability from the pre-placement health questionnaire in October 2022. After the claimant had an epileptic seizure during a return-to-work interview in late April 2024, the respondent held capability meetings, but it did not refer him to Occupational Health, did not obtain a report from his consultant before dismissal, and did not meaningfully explore whether he could remain in work on other duties or in the vacant Trainee Quarry Operative role at Ryeflatt.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal held that the claimant was treated unfavourably because of the seizure at work, which arose in consequence of disability. It accepted that the respondent had legitimate health and safety and workforce-management aims, but held that dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving those aims. The tribunal relied on the absence of medical input, the absence of any genuine consideration of limited duties, reduced hours or a lower-paid role for a period, and the evidence that the claimant had previously carried out duties that did not involve driving heavy machinery or working at height. It also found that the respondent did not require Quarry Operatives to hold a valid driving licence.

On the section 20/21 claim, the tribunal found that the respondent operated a PCP requiring employees in health and safety critical or driving roles not to have seizures at work. That PCP placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled workers, and the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage. The tribunal held that it would have been reasonable to refer the claimant to Occupational Health, consider the consultant’s report, and consider the vacant Trainee Quarry Operative role, which did not initially require heavy driving duties. The tribunal rejected the respondent’s position that the claimant could not work on site at all. It noted that the consultant’s later letter of 16 July 2024 recorded normal MRI and EEG results, no further seizures after medication was increased, and that another employee with epilepsy had worked on site.

For remedy, the tribunal limited future loss to 31 July 2025, applied a 20% deduction because the claimant did not pursue his appeal, and calculated financial loss by reference to National Minimum Wage rates for the duties it found he could have done. It assessed injury to feelings in the lower Vento band and awarded £7,000 plus interest. The gross financial award was £22,366.54, including interest on the financial loss, and the injury to feelings award was £7,466.67, including interest. The total gross award was £29,833.21, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance on the financial element.