Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for capability (ill health), a potentially fair reason. The respondent genuinely believed the claimant was no longer capable, adequately consulted her, carried out a reasonable investigation including obtaining up-to-date medical opinion, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses after nearly 10 months' absence with no prospect of return within a reasonable period.

The tribunal found that a hypothetical comparator without the claimant's disabilities but with the same level of absence and uncertain prognosis would have been treated the same way. The dismissal was due to capability (ill health) arising from the level of sickness absence and uncertain prognosis, not because of disability itself.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's aims (absence management, running an effective service, managing limited public funds, applying policies consistently) were legitimate. The tribunal found dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving those aims after 10 months' absence with no prospect of return within 3-6 months at best, given the need to properly staff the prison within budgetary constraints.

The tribunal found that the PCPs identified by the claimant did not place her at a significant disadvantage compared to someone without her disability. A person on long-term sick leave without the claimant's disability would have been in exactly the same position under the absence management and sick pay policies. The tribunal also found it would not have been reasonable to expect the employer to make the adjustments claimed (working from home indefinitely, extended paid/unpaid leave for treatment beyond the 10 months already provided).