Medical Cannabis User Denied Rail Job Wins Appeal on Disability Discrimination Claim
A claimant denied a safety-critical rail job due to medical cannabis use has partially won their disability discrimination appeal.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules on Disability Discrimination Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has delivered a significant judgment in the case of Mr Jack Truman against SPL Powerlines UK Limited and others. Mr Truman, who was diagnosed with genetic haemochromatosis, leading to chronic pain managed by prescribed medical cannabis, was denied a safety-critical role in the rail industry after failing a drugs and alcohol test. The EAT has allowed Mr Truman's appeal concerning the "substantial disadvantage/comparator issue" in his claims against Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, remitting these issues for reconsideration.
The case centred on Mr Truman's failure to pass a drugs and alcohol test, administered by Express Medicals Limited, which consequently led to SPL Powerlines UK Limited withdrawing their job offer and Network Rail banning him from safety-critical work for five years. The initial Employment Tribunal (ET) had dismissed Mr Truman's claims of disability discrimination. However, the EAT has now overturned some of the ET's findings.
Specifically, the EAT dismissed Mr Truman's appeal on the "competence standard issue" concerning Network Rail and dismissed Network Rail's cross-appeal on the "qualifications body issue". Crucially, the EAT also dismissed Express Medicals Limited's cross-appeal, meaning the company has no liability for any contravention by Network Rail.
The appeal concerning "substantial disadvantage/comparator issues" was dismissed in relation to Powerlines but allowed against Network Rail. The tribunal found that the ET's reasoning in determining substantial disadvantage for Network Rail was unclear, particularly regarding the application of the "bites harder" test and the identification of the relevant policy (PCP). Therefore, these issues have been remitted to the ET for further consideration.
The EAT noted that while the initial ET believed Mr Truman had suffered an injustice, it had not upheld his claims as pleaded. The judgment highlights the complexities surrounding drug and alcohol testing policies, medical cannabis use, and disability discrimination within safety-critical industries.
Read the entire judgment here: Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd & Others EAT 54
