Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Farrand

A transfer from an adjusted role to another role does not, without more, establish a failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal must determine whether the new role would itself have been reasonably adjusted before the disabled employee was required to undertake it.

Where the issue arises, the employer may bear the burden under section 136 of showing that the necessary adjustments would have been made. A tribunal must make the required factual findings before deciding either the reasonable-adjustments claim or a related section 15 claim.

The Claimant was a disabled police officer whose computer-related adjustments were eventually provided in her office-based NIT role. Following mediation, the Respondent proposed to transfer her to a supernumerary role. She did not take up that role before her medical retirement.

The Employment Tribunal found both an unlawful delay in providing computer adjustments and a further breach of the reasonable-adjustments duty in transferring her from the adjusted NIT role. The Respondent appealed the latter finding. The Claimant cross-appealed conditionally because the Tribunal had not decided her separate section 15 claim arising from the transfer.

The central issue was whether removal from an adjusted role alone established a breach of section 21 of the Equality Act 2010.

1. The appeal and conditional cross-appeal were allowed. The finding that the transfer to the supernumerary role breached section 21 of the Equality Act 2010 could not stand.

2. The Employment Tribunal had found that the NIT role was properly adjusted and that it would have been reasonable to permit the Claimant to remain in it. Those findings did not, however, determine whether the proposed supernumerary role would have been reasonably adjusted before she was required to start it.

3. The third reasonable-adjustments requirement in section 20(3) concerned auxiliary aids. Although the necessary computer aids had been supplied for the NIT role, a corresponding duty arose in relation to the supernumerary role, assuming the Respondent could transfer the Claimant there. In the circumstances, the Respondent bore the burden under section 136 of showing that reasonable adjustments would have been made in that role, consistently with Project Management Institute v Latif [2007] IRLR 579.

4. The Tribunal did not resolve the material dispute about whether the necessary aids would have been in place. The agreed action plan contemplated a risk assessment before the new role began, but that did not remove the need for findings on whether the role would be reasonably adjusted. A move from one reasonably adjusted role to a different role does not necessarily breach section 21.

5. Further fact-finding was required before either the section 21 claim or the unresolved section 15 claim concerning the transfer could be decided. Applying Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] IRLR 544, the Appeal Tribunal remitted both issues. Applying the approach in Sinclair Roche & Temperley v Heard [2004] IRLR 763, it directed remission to a fresh Employment Tribunal because of the possible perception that the original Tribunal had already formed a view favourable to the Claimant. The unchallenged delay finding and its outstanding remedy hearing remained to be dealt with as directed by the Regional Employment Judge.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the Respondent's appeal and the Claimant's conditional cross-appeal. The section 15 and section 21 issues concerning the transfer were remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal.

• Employment Tribunal (Leeds): By a reserved judgment with reasons dated 7 May 2014, upheld claims for delay in making adjustments and for the transfer from the NIT role. It did not determine the separate section 15 transfer claim. Remedy on the delay claim remained outstanding.