Makuchova v Guoman Hotel Management (UK) Ltd

Under section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010, reasonable adjustments may discharge the duty where they would objectively enable an employee to return to the existing job. An employer need not offer redeployment unless the existing role cannot be performed with reasonable adjustments. Whether proposed adjustments are reasonable and sufficient is ordinarily a factual question for the Employment Tribunal. Permission to appeal was refused where there was no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason.

The applicant had worked in a restaurant and hotel business for about ten years before developing a degenerative spinal condition. Her employer proposed hourly breaks to enable her to return to her existing role, but she sought redeployment and was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal found that reasonable adjustments had been offered and distinguished Archibald v Fife Council. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, presided over by Singh J, dismissed her appeal. Vos LJ refused permission on the papers. The applicant renewed her application orally before the Court of Appeal, challenging the conclusion that no wider duty to find alternative work arose.

Application refused. Lord Justice Sales reached the same conclusion as Vos LJ and held that there was no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason to grant permission.

1. The duty under section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010 is to make reasonable adjustments to avoid the disadvantage caused by disability. That duty may be met by adjustments which, judged objectively, enable the employee to return to the existing job. An employer has no wider obligation to find an alternative role unless the employee cannot return to the old role with reasonable adjustments.
2. Whether proposed adjustments are reasonable and sufficient is a factual matter for the Employment Tribunal, assessed on the evidence. The Tribunal was entitled to regard hourly breaks as adjustments which could be tried in practice, with further adjustments if necessary, where the medical evidence disclosed a serious prospect that they would be suitable.
3. Archibald v Fife Council [2004] ICR 954, concerning a job which was incapable of adjustment because the employee could not perform it, was properly distinguished. The present evidence left open the possibility that the applicant could perform her existing role with appropriate adjustments.
4. Since the Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal had made an evaluative factual assessment that disclosed no error of law, the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The application was formally refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 14 April 2016, Sales LJ refused the renewed oral application for permission to appeal, holding that there was no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal. Singh J dismissed the appeal on 11 December 2014, finding no error of law in the Employment Tribunal’s decision and accepting that Archibald v Fife Council could be distinguished.
3. Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal, in a decision promulgated on 4 September 2013, found that reasonable adjustments had been offered and rejected the applicant’s claim.