Readers will be familiar with the duty to make reasonable adjustments to remove the disadvantage posed to a disabled employee when compared with a non-disabled colleague. We often find ourselves asking, “what is reasonable?” and there are of course many factors to be considered.
A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision tells us that an employer can refuse to make an adjustment, provided that their response is proportionate. So, what happened in this case of Powell v University of Portsmouth, and what does it mean for employers? Read on to find out...
Case background
In Powell v University of Portsmouth, the Claimant worked as a lecturer. He began experiencing blackouts that were, at the time, unpredictable and medically unexplained.
Whilst medical investigations were carried out, the Claimant asked that a support worker be appointed to accompany him at all times. The Respondent considered this request but did not feel it could allow him to return to work whilst the blackouts continued to pose a risk to him and to his students. He was therefore unable to return to face-to-face teaching.
The outcome
Both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the Respondent had adequately assessed the requested adjustments and that they were not reasonable. Further, they found that the refusal to allow the Claimant to return to work was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, in view of the need to provide a high quality of teaching and in order to avoid the risks posed by the ongoing blackouts.
It is worth noting that this case was on very specific facts and the same outcome in another case would require thorough examination in view of the employee’s condition and their specific requests, plus the requirements of their role.
The point to take away is that an employer should carry out a detailed and evidence-based consideration of the employee’s role and the actual practical impact of their condition before rejecting the suggestion of any adjustment.
