Northern Care Alliance Wins Employment Appeal Over Disability Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal Claims
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld a prior ruling in favour of the Northern Care Alliance, dismissing an appeal concerning disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.
• public
Tribunal Upholds Decision in Favour of Northern Care Alliance
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal brought by Mrs. F Ntakibirora Mahoro against The Northern Care Alliance, thereby upholding the original Employment Tribunal's decision. The case, heard before His Honour Judge James Tayler, concerned claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The initial judgment, delivered by Regional Employment Judge Franey, had largely rejected Mrs. Mahoro's complaints.
Background of the Case
Mrs. Mahoro, a Biomedical Scientist (BMS), had a long-term spinal condition affecting her mobility and causing significant pain. Following spinal surgery in 2016, she sought flexible working arrangements. Her requests were not fully accommodated, leading to grievances and, ultimately, her dismissal in February 2020 on the grounds of ill health after long-term sickness absence. The dismissal was appealed but remained unsuccessful. Mrs Mahoro originally was employed as a Medical Laboratory Assistant from 2004.
Key Issues in the Appeal
Mrs. Mahoro's appeal focused on several key areas, including alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments related to working hours and the provision of a suitable chair. She also challenged the tribunal's findings on discrimination arising from disability, specifically concerning missed MALDI training and her dismissal. Her legal team also argued unfair dismissal, time limit extensions and a lack of appropriate written reasons given for dismissal.
Reasonable Adjustments: Working Hours and Chair
The EAT scrutinised the Employment Tribunal's assessment of reasonable adjustments, especially regarding working hours. Mrs. Mahoro had requested flexible arrangements, including potential variations on working hours. The EAT determined that the tribunal had sufficiently considered the evidence, including the claimant's preference for hours facilitating childcare, and permissibly concluded that the requested adjustments were not reasonable given the operational needs of the microbiology service. While an adjustment of some form to working hours was sought at all times by Mrs Mahoro, ultimately the EAT supported the original tribunal decision that the failure to allow these changes was not disability discrimination.
Regarding the chair, the EAT affirmed the original tribunal's finding that providing a brake-loaded castor (BLC) chair posed unacceptable safety risks, citing health and safety concerns and manufacturer disclaimers. The EAT acknowledged that even if the chair issue had been resolved, the claimant's inability to use a manual microscope would remain a significant barrier to her returning to her role as a BMS.
Discrimination Arising from Disability and Unfair Dismissal
The appeal also challenged the rejection of claims of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability. The EAT agreed that the claimant's absence due to surgery was the reason MALDI training had not been given at the time. However, the employment tribunal was satisfied that this could not be regarded as unfavourable treatment. The claimant also asserted any the grounds given by the employer to make reasonable adjustments would inevitably affect the justification for dismissal. However, the EAT supported the decision of the original tribunal.
Harassment Claims
Mrs. Mahoro claimed harassment linked to disability, citing conversations with managers where her contribution to laboratory work was described as limited. The EAT upheld the tribunal's finding that these comments, while potentially unwanted and related to her disability, did not create a proscribed working environment with the purpose of humiliation.
Unfair Dismissal and Written Statement
The EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal's finding that the dismissal was fair, given Mrs. Mahoro's long-term absence, the impracticality of the required adjustments, and the lack of a suitable alternative role. The EAT noted that although there had been a failure to provide a written statement that was not unreasonable as all of the information had already been provided.
Outcome of the Appeal
Ultimately, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the Employment Tribunal's original decision in favour of The Northern Care Alliance. The EAT found no error of law in the Employment Tribunal's reasoning and rejected assertions of perversity.
Read the entire judgement here: Mrs F Ntakibirora Mahoro v The Northern Care Alliance [2025] EAT 85
