In Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller [2024] EAT 37, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal that Rentokil, the Respondent, had failed to make a reasonable adjustment when it dismissed a disabled employee, rather than offering him an alternative role on a trial basis.
Facts of the Case
The Claimant, Mr Miller, was employed by the Respondent as a pest control technician in April 2016. The role was described as a “field role” and was physically demanding and involved working much of the time on ladders. In March 2017, the Claimant was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis and it was agreed with the Respondent that various changes should be made to his working conditions to mitigate the impact of his disability on his ability to undertake the role. Unfortunately, however, by 2019 it had become clear that the Claimant would not be able to continue in his current role even with adjustments and so steps were taken to look for a new role for the Claimant within the business.
There were two service administrator vacancies at this time and the Claimant applied for one of these positions in February 2019. All candidates were required to undergo an interview process and do a maths and a spelling assessment. The Claimant did not perform well in the assessment process and was not offered the role.
The Claimant was then invited to a capability meeting on 13 March 2019 in which he was dismissed by the Respondent. The reason given for his dismissal was that there were no adjustments that could be made that would enable the Claimant to remain in his existing field role and there was no suitable alternative role for him in the business, other than the service administrator role which he had already applied for unsuccessfully.
The Claimant appealed his dismissal but was unsuccessful. He later brought employment tribunal claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from a disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments
Employment Tribunal Decision
The Employment Tribunal upheld the Claimant’s claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from a disability. In respect of his reasonable adjustments claim, the Tribunal held that the Respondent should have treated the Claimant more favourably than other candidates in the application process for the service administrator role and that it would have been reasonable to offer him the role on four-week trial basis.
The Tribunal also made a finding that had the Claimant been offered the new role on a trial period, there was a 50% chance he would have been successful and been made permanent in the role.
The Respondent appealed the decision on various grounds relating to the reasonableness of offering the Claimant the service administrator role on a trial basis.
EAT Decision
The EAT agreed with the tribunal. It held that where a disability places an employee at a substantial disadvantage such that they cannot continue in their present job, and are at risk of imminent dismissal, then if moving the employee to an alternative role has a real prospect of removing that disadvantage, then it should be reasonably considered. As the Claimant in this case had identified a role that was potentially suitable, then the burden passed to the Respondent to show that it was not reasonable to have put the employee into that role, or to have done so at least on a trial basis.
Comment
This judgment is a useful reminder of quite how far the duty to make reasonable adjustments can extend and that before dismissing a disabled employee on capability grounds, employers should consider redeployment very carefully, including the option of a trial period.