F Ntakibirora Mahoro v The Northern Care Alliance

This appeal concerned wide‑ranging challenges to an Employment Tribunal judgment that dismissed complaints of disability discrimination (including discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments), harassment and unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal had applied the correct legal principles and given adequate reasons: in particular it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the adjustments sought (reduction of daily hours, provision of a brake‑loaded castor chair or an ergonomic chair suitable for high bench work and provision of digital microscopy) either went beyond what was reasonable or would not have had a realistic prospect of enabling a safe return to the claimant's substantive Band 6 role.

The EAT applied the statutory tests under the Equality Act 2010 (notably section 15 in relation to discrimination arising from disability and section 39 in relation to access to training) and considered the reasonableness limb of the duty to make reasonable adjustments together with the proportionality assessment relevant to justification of treatment. The EAT also upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that the respondent’s failure to provide a written statement of reasons under section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996, although a technical failure, was not an unreasonable failure under section 93 in the circumstances because reasons for dismissal had already been provided.

The claimant, a long‑serving Biomedical Scientist promoted to a Band 6 team leader post, suffered from a long‑term spinal condition. She brought multiple Employment Tribunal complaints including direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments (hours, seating, digital microscope, workstation changes and time off for medical appointments), disability harassment and unfair dismissal. The Tribunal dismissed all complaints.

Procedural history: the Tribunal hearing took place over multiple days in 2022 and its judgment was sent on 14 July 2022. The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Permission to proceed was granted after preliminary consideration; the EAT conducted a Burns/Barke questionnaire to the Employment Judge and received further submissions before handing down judgment.

Issues for determination by the EAT included whether the Employment Tribunal: had erred in law or reached perverse conclusions in rejecting reasonable adjustment claims (notably reduction of hours and provision of a suitable chair); had misapplied section 15 Equality Act 2010 in relation to training (MALDI) and dismissal; had erred in its harassment findings; whether the dismissal was unfair; and whether the respondent had unreasonably failed to provide a written statement of reasons under section 92 ERA.

Reasoning and outcome: the EAT reviewed the Tribunal’s factual findings and legal reasoning. On reasonable adjustments the Tribunal had considered contemporaneous documents, occupational health reports and operational constraints and concluded that allowing the claimant to finish early or otherwise rearrange core hours would have had an unacceptable impact on service delivery and patient safety and that recruitment to cover short spread‑out hours was unrealistic. The Tribunal was entitled to treat the chair issue as involving an unacceptable safety risk where suppliers either disclaimed liability or advised against castors at high bench height; it was also open to conclude that provision of an ergonomic chair would not have facilitated return if the claimant could not safely perform microscopy without digital equipment, which the Tribunal found was unsafe to adopt. The Tribunal’s findings on discrimination arising from disability (MALDI training and postponement of review) and harassment were held to be open to it on the evidence. On dismissal, the Tribunal correctly characterised the reason as capability related to long‑term ill health and found the decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses after appropriate medical inquiries and consultations. Finally, although the respondent failed to provide a section 92 statement on request, the Tribunal reasonably held that the failure was not unreasonable because reasons had already been provided in the dismissal letter.

The appeal is dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal had applied the correct legal principles and reached conclusions on evidence that were open to it. The Tribunal permissibly concluded that the adjustments sought went beyond what was reasonable or would not have materially facilitated a safe return to the claimant's substantive Band 6 role, and that dismissal for incapacity arising from long‑term ill health was within the band of reasonable responses. The EAT also held that the employer's oversight in not responding to a section 92 request was not an unreasonable failure in the circumstances.

The Employment Tribunal (Regional Employment Judge Franey sitting with lay members) heard the claim and dismissed complaints of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal; judgment sent 14 July 2022. The claimant sought permission to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal; the appeal was initially considered by Clive Sheldon KC who regarded there were no reasonable grounds but permission was given at a Rule 3(10) hearing by His Honour Judge Murray Shanks who allowed amended grounds. The EAT proceeded, used a Burns/Barke procedure to ask questions of the Employment Judge, and handed down the present judgment [2025] EAT 85.