Riley v. Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

For a claim under section 4A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, an Employment Tribunal must identify the relevant provision, criterion or practice, the appropriate comparator, the substantial disadvantage and the reasonable adjustment required. A Tribunal need not reproduce the statutory wording or cite every authority if its reasoning, read fairly, shows that it addressed the material statutory steps. A rehabilitation programme may itself constitute a reasonable adjustment and may be reviewed, modified or extended as circumstances develop. A complaint about particular equipment should be assessed in the context of the overall adjustment, rather than as an isolated question of whether failure to provide that equipment was reasonable.

The appellant, a customer adviser, suffered a work-related hip injury and was absent from work. On her return, the respondent implemented an agreed rehabilitation programme involving reduced hours, modified duties and periodic review. The programme was intended to last six weeks but was extended when her progress did not develop as anticipated.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed her claim that the respondent had breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 4A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. She appealed, alleging failure to apply the stepped approach in Environment Agency v Rowan, inadequate reasons and perversity concerning the provision of a posture chair and footstool.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal had not erred in law, given inadequate reasons or reached a perverse conclusion.
2. On a fair reading, the Tribunal had addressed the material statutory questions under section 4A(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It found that the appellant was disabled, that the requirement to perform the full range of customer-adviser duties placed her at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled persons, and that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was engaged.
3. The Tribunal was not required to set out section 4A in full or refer expressly to Environment Agency v Rowan. The absence of a citation is not an error of law where the correct statutory approach was adopted. The Tribunal’s reasoning sufficiently explained why the claim failed.
4. The rehabilitation programme was the adjustment made by the respondent. It was reasonable in context, was subject to review and modification, and was extended because the appellant did not progress beyond the second-week arrangement. There was no finding that modifications or departures were imposed without her consent.
5. The issue of the posture chair and footstool formed part of the overall assessment of whether reasonable adjustments had been made. It was not necessary to treat the equipment complaint as an isolated breach. The decision was reached on the facts and the appeal therefore failed.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal from the Employment Tribunal’s judgment entered on 14 September 2009.
• Employment Tribunal: dismissed the appellant’s claim that the respondent had breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 4A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.