Claimant v NewDay Cards PLC

Claim not formally listed as unfair dismissal under ERA 1996 in the issues, but dismissal fairness was considered in context of discrimination claims.

Tribunal found dismissal was unfavourable treatment arising from claimant's inability to work due to disability. It was not a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims because respondent failed to seek updated medical evidence to resolve ambiguity between GP certificate and Occupational Therapist report, and there were less discriminatory alternatives such as allowing phased return with initial adjustments pending equipment procurement.

Three adjustments succeeded: (1) allowing work from home temporarily pending equipment/wheelchair procurement; (2) allowing phased return as recommended by Occupational Therapist starting 30 minutes twice daily; (3) investigating Access to Work for electric wheelchair. Tribunal rejected adjustment requiring someone to push manual wheelchair (not reasonable to hire carer or burden employees) and rejected starting at one hour twice daily (contrary to OT advice and risked health relapse).

Claimant failed to show reason for dismissal was connected to race. Tribunal accepted comparators Ms White and Ms Smith had materially different circumstances (White had ill-health retirement option, Smith had back operation with different prognosis). Reason for dismissal was respondent's perception claimant not well enough to return and belief 30-minute sessions unreasonable, not race.