Parnell V Royal Mail Group Ltd

A finding of failure to make reasonable adjustments does not prevent disability discrimination claims from being dismissed – Parnell v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2024] EAT 130

The Claimant in this case had anxiety and depression and brought 31 claims against his employer. He had made allegations against his manager in 2017 – these were investigated and subsequently found to have been made in bad faith. The Claimant therefore received a two-year warning.

The Claimant went on long-term sick leave in January 2018 and refused to come back to work until the warning was rescinded (which it was not). The warning eventually expired at which time the Claimant refused to return to work. Due to an irreversible breakdown in trust and confidence, the Claimant was dismissed in June 2020.

Due to the number of claims, these were split into two periods to be heard by the Employment Tribunal. The first heard claims which related to his employment until early 2020 whilst the second looked at later events including the management of his absence and subsequent dismissal.

The first tribunal upheld a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments – this was in respect of the Respondent not removing the warning or reviewing the bad faith decision. During the second tribunal, the Claimant relied on the fact that the Respondent did not remove the warning. However his claims for (1) failure to make reasonable adjustments (2) discrimination arising from disability and (3) unfair dismissal were all dismissed. He appealed, citing the finding of the first tribunal and suggesting more consideration should have been given to this.

The appeal was dismissed by the EAT. As the second tribunal were considering a different time period, by this time the warning had expired and it would not have therefore been a reasonable adjustment to have removed it. Equally, it found that whilst the tribunal had erred in its reasons, they were able to dismiss the discrimination arising from disability claim as their behaviour was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim i.e. removing the warning would not have guaranteed his return to work.

Finally, the unfair dismissal claim was permissible to dismiss as they considered the reasonableness of choosing to dismiss at that time and the position had developed since the time period of the first tribunal.

This case serves as a useful reminder that where tribunals consider different time periods relating to the same employee, a finding of one does not have to have ultimate influence on the other where they consider different facts.