Claimant v Ocado Central Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The respondent conducted dismissal in line with policy after multiple meetings, gathered all medical evidence, and tried to support redeployment. There was no reasonable prospect of the claimant returning to work. The tribunal also found the failure to hear the appeal was not because of the disability but because of the claimant's absence/lack of engagement due to caring for his mother.
The tribunal found the suggested adjustment of offering a sedentary role working from home could not reasonably have been made. There was no prospect of the claimant being able to do even a sedentary role within a reasonable time period given his medical conditions including confusion, dizziness, exhaustion and mobility issues. The claimant had not been willing or able to engage with alternative roles identified by the respondent.
Facts
The claimant worked as a delivery driver and step-up marshal from February 2020 until dismissed in November 2021. He went on sick leave in February 2021 due to a knee injury and developed multiple serious conditions including type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, back and spinal problems causing exhaustion, confusion, dizziness and severe mobility limitations. The respondent followed its long-term sickness procedure over nine months, holding multiple Phase 2 meetings, seeking occupational health reports, and offering hundreds of alternative vacancy lists. The claimant could not identify suitable roles given his lack of relevant qualifications and skills. At Phase 3, the claimant conceded he could not return to work and could only hope for recovery in six months with proper medical treatment. He was dismissed as incapable of working. His appeal was not heard due to non-attendance at three scheduled hearings while he was in Turkey caring for his dying mother.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed both claims. The dismissal was discrimination arising from disability but was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of not retaining employees with no prospect of returning to work. The respondent had followed proper procedures, gathered medical evidence, and explored redeployment extensively. The failure to hear the appeal was not because of disability but because of the claimant's non-engagement. The reasonable adjustment claim failed because there was no prospect the claimant could perform even sedentary work given his medical conditions including confusion, dizziness and exhaustion.
Practical note
Even with extensive procedural fairness and exploration of alternatives, dismissal for incapability can be justified where medical evidence shows no reasonable prospect of return to any work within a foreseeable timeframe.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3304183/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Delivery driver and step-up marshal
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No