The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has set a precedent that could significantly impact the rights of disabled employees in the workplace. The EAT upheld a ruling that providing a trial period in a new role can be considered a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010.
The Facts
The Claimant was employed as a field-based pest control technician by the Respondent. He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2017. His job, which typically required working at heights and was physically strenuous, became increasingly challenging due to his disability. Despite adjustments being made to his role, by 2019, it was clear that he could no longer continue in his position, and the search for alternative employment within the company began. The Claimant applied for a service administrator role but was not offered the position after an interview and written tests. After the Respondent l obtained a capability assessment that ruled out further adjustments or alternative positions, the Claimant was dismissed.
The Claimant brought employment tribunal claims against the Respondent for disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. In particular, he argued that the Respondent’s refusal to offer him a trial period in the administrative role was a breach of the Equality Act 2010.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) agreed, holding that offering a trial period coupled with additional training would have been a suitable adjustment. It suggested that there was a 50% chance that this could have resulted in permanent employment in the new role.
The Respondent appealed to the EAT on the basis that the ET had erred in finding that a trial period could be deemed a reasonable adjustment. It argued that if an employer justifiably determines that an applicant is unqualified or unsuitable for a position, then appointing them to the role cannot be regarded as a reasonable adjustment.
The EAT Decision
The EAT upheld the ET’s decision, emphasising that the trial period could have potentially removed the threat of dismissal entirely, rather than merely delaying it. It stated that the onus was on the Respondent to demonstrate that it was unreasonable to place the Claimant in the new role, even on a trial basis, and they had failed to do so.
The Respondent’s challenge to the ET’s interpretation of a trial period as a reasonable adjustment was rejected by the EAT. The ET was deemed to have properly considered the company’s assessment of the Claimant’s suitability for the role and did not have to agree with that assessment.
The decision took into account the lack of evidence presented by the Respondent to support its case and the fact that the recruiting manager’s assessment was not necessarily decisive.
This case serves as a critical reminder to employers that when a disabled employee is unable to continue in their original role, redeployment, including trial periods, must be considered. The EAT’s judgment confirms that the tribunal correctly applied the law regarding reasonable adjustments, considering all relevant factors, including the suitability of the role and the prospects of the employee successfully completing a trial period.
For advice and assistance in considering reasonable adjustments, please contact a member of our Employment team who will be happy to assist.
