Case study: Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2025]
In Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal recently upheld a finding that it would not have been reasonable to redeploy a disabled employee where they did not meet the essential criteria for the role and where training would not have made up for the lack of essential competence for the role.
Background facts
The Claimant was a Customer Service Assistant at London Bridge Station. His main duties were to patrol the station and carry out security checks. He suffered from plantar fasciitis and shortly after he started his employment, he suffered a recurrence of his symptoms and was absent from work. Initially he was placed on the helpdesk as an interim measure and then after another period of absence, the Claimant was placed on the Respondents redeployment register.
The Claimant applied for three roles within the Respondent however he was unsuccessful. The medical evidence was that the Claimant was unfit to carry out his contractual role from July 2020 until his dismissal although the position improved a little such that by July 2021 it was considered that he was fit to carry out a mainly sedentary role on a part time basis. After a series of capability meetings in early 2021, he was given notice of a decision to dismiss on grounds of capability which took effect on 25 August 2021.
The Claimant brought a claim to the Employment Tribunal arguing that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his disability which led to his dismissal. The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claims and the Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Employment Tribunal Appeal Hearing
The Claimant argued in respect of reasonable adjustments that he ought to have been redeployed by the Respondent into one of the three roles he had applied for. He also suggested ‘bumping’ another staff member from a helpdesk role. In addition, the Claimant claimed that the Respondent ought to have given him longer to find redeployment before deciding to dismiss or given additional training or support with job applications or permitted him to work split shifts.
The Tribunal found that the duty to make reasonable adjustments in respect of the Claimant’s disability during the redeployment search was engaged. However, it rejected appointment to each of the alternative roles as reasonable adjustments on the basis that the Claimant did not meet the essential criteria. It was also not satisfied that training would have made up for the lack of essential competence for the roles. The decision to dismiss was proportionate because any potential lesser measure had already been addressed.
Th EAT found that the original Tribunal had correctly applied the law and reached reasonable conclusions based on the evidence presented. It agreed that the Respondent was not obligated to create new roles or significantly alter existing ones to accommodate the Claimant’s disability.
Key points to note
- This case serves as a reminder that when making reasonable adjustments for an employee’s disability, employers should consider redeployment to alternative roles within an organisation or allowing additional time to secure a suitable alternative position.
- On the facts of this case, none of the alternative roles identified were found to be reasonable in circumstances where the Claimant did not meet the essential criteria for the role and where training would not have made up for the lack of essential competence for the roles.