Blind NHS Worker Wins Discrimination Claim

An NHS worker who was ultimately made redundant following a serious deterioration in her eyesight is due substantial compensation after the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that her employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments to cater for her disability and that unlawful discrimination had contributed to her unfair dismissal (Redcar and Cleveland Primary Care Trust v Lonsdale).



Miss Lonsdale began working for Redcar and Cleveland Primary Care Trust as a senior occupational therapist on pay band six. In August 2008, she suffered a significant deterioration in her vision and was registered blind. In December 2008, an occupational health assessment concluded that she could no longer work in any role involving interaction with patients and, in February 2009, she was redeployed to a band four administrative role as a workforce development co-ordinator.



The Trust subsequently embarked on a restructuring exercise and Miss Lonsdale was informed that she was at risk of redundancy. An HR framework was adopted to deal with the possible redeployment of those whose jobs were at risk. This allowed staff to apply for one post at the grade above their current position but no higher. Miss Lonsdale was refused permission to apply for a band six staff and patient safety role, because it was two bands above her current position, and was subsequently dismissed on grounds of redundancy.



Miss Lonsdale brought claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that there had been a failure on the part of the Trust to make reasonable adjustments and that Miss Lonsdale’s dismissal had been unfair. However, the ET rejected Miss Lonsdale’s plea that her dismissal had also been discriminatory.



In dismissing the Trust’s appeal, the EAT ruled that Miss Lonsdale had suffered a substantial disadvantage in that, as a direct result of the onset of her visual impairment, she was redeployed from a band six to a band four role in 2009. It was that demotion which had precluded her from subsequently applying for the band six position when threatened with redundancy.



In considering what reasonable adjustments should have been made, the EAT noted that, had Miss Lonsdale not been disabled, she would have stayed in her original band six post and been eligible to apply for the staff and patient safety role. Her earlier redeployment was not too remote, as the ET had thought, from the disadvantage she subsequently suffered – when she was prevented from applying for the alternative band six role – to conclude that her dismissal was discriminatory.



In allowing Miss Lonsdale’s cross appeal, the EAT noted that, although the Trust had wanted to treat all staff equally, it had overlooked the fact that disabled people are sometimes entitled to be treated more favourably than non-disabled colleagues, a principle established in Archibald v Fife. Finding that Miss Lonsdale’s dismissal was discriminatory, as well as unfair, the EAT observed that her redundancy had been rendered inevitable by the employer’s refusal to allow her to apply for the band six post.



The case was remitted to the ET to assess the level of compensation payable.