Network Rail Wins Disability Discrimination Case at Employment Appeal Tribunal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a ruling in favour of Network Rail, dismissing claims of disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
• public
Network Rail Prevails in Disability Discrimination Appeal
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited has successfully defended claims of disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments brought by Mr Golam Chowdhury, a former Customer Service Assistant (CSA), at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Mr Chowdhury, who suffered from plantar fasciitis, claimed Network Rail failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his disability, leading to his dismissal. The original Employment Tribunal dismissed his claims, a decision Mr Chowdhury appealed.
Key Issues in the Case
Mr Chowdhury argued that Network Rail should have redeployed him to alternative roles, including a stores co-ordinator, document controller, HR administrator, or a receptionist position. He also suggested 'bumping' another staff member from a helpdesk role. Furthermore, he claimed the company should have allowed him more time to find a suitable alternative, provided additional training, or permitted split shifts.
EAT Upholds Original Ruling
The EAT, presided over by Sarah Crowther KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court, upheld the original tribunal's decision. The EAT found that the initial tribunal had correctly applied the law and reached reasonable conclusions based on the evidence presented. It agreed that Network Rail was not obligated to create new roles or significantly alter existing ones to accommodate Mr Chowdhury's disability.
The EAT also supported the tribunal's finding that asking helpdesk staff to swap jobs with Mr Chowdhury was not a reasonable adjustment, as these roles were desirable and often assigned based on express contractual terms or employee preference.
Reasonable Adjustments and Proportionality
The EAT agreed with the original tribunal's stance that the question of proportionality and justification under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 was materially identical to the reasonable adjustments case. Therefore, it was not an error of law for the tribunal not to repeat itself in its reasoning.
Ultimately, the EAT dismissed Mr Chowdhury's appeal, finding no error of law in the original tribunal's decision.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Golam Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2025] EAT 132
