Mahoro v The Northern Care Alliance – Can health and safety concerns justify refusal of reasonable adjustments?

Hello and welcome back to our Case of the Week. Last week, we looked at the UK Tribunal’s decision in overruling CNN on Jurisdiction. If you missed it, click here.

This week, we focus on a case that highlights the balance between an employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments and operational or safety requirements.

Background

Mrs Mahoro was a Biomedical Scientist with the NHS, promoted to Band 6 team leader in 2014. She combined laboratory work with supervisory responsibilities.

She had a long-term spinal condition that significantly limited her mobility and ability to work at high laboratory benches. Following spinal surgery in 2016, she returned on a phased basis. She made numerous requests for flexible working arrangements and ergonomic seating to manage her condition effectively.

The first adjustment was that the Claimant requested to work six hours per day, five days a week, with an early finish. This arrangement would accommodate both her spinal pain and childcare duties. The Respondent rejected this request on operational grounds. The Respondent raised concerns about lone working before standard lab hour as well as the impact on service delivery. It was also practically impossible to backfile a small number of hours at the end of each day.  Particularly in a specialist sector with existing staff shortages.

The Claimant’s second request was the provision of a brake-loaded castor (“BLC”) chair. This chair was essential to minimise the strain on her back and allow for mobility at high benches without requiring physical exertion. However, both of the Respondent’s chair suppliers raised safety concerns about using such chairs in a laboratory setting. One supplier insisted on a liability waiver. The Respondent declined to take on the risk and refused the purchase

The Employment Tribunal (ET)

The ET found that the Respondent had properly engaged with the Claimant’s  application for flexible hours and request for occupational health input. The refusal was justified given the potential disruption to workflow, staffing pressure, and the impracticality of recruiting for such limited hours.

     

Regarding the chair, the ET found that the Respondent had reasonably refused to supply a BLC chair due to credible health and safety concerns and the absence of a safe alternative. The ET further found that dismissal on the grounds of ill health was lawful and proportionate.

     

While accepting that the dismissal arose in consequence of her disability, it concluded that the Respondent had a legitimate aim by ensuring that staff could safely perform their contractual duties. The dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving this aim.

     

The Claimant was unable to return to fulfil her duties.  The alternative work she proposed resembled administrative or Band 2 responsibilities, which could not reasonably be accommodated under her Band 6 contract.

     

Harassment claims were also dismissed. The ET considered specific comments made to the Claimant about her contribution to lab work and concluded that although they were related to her disability, they were not intended to offend, nor did they reasonably create a hostile or degrading environment.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)

The EAT upheld the ET’s decision in its entirety.

In relation to working hours, the EAT agreed that the ET had thoroughly evaluated not only the original flexible working request but also alternative proposals. It reaffirmed the ET’s conclusion that the employer’s refusal was operationally reasonable and proportionate.

The EAT further accepted that the ET had properly weighed the competing concerns regarding the BLC chair. This was because the BLC chair could not safely be used at laboratory height and that gliding chairs were also inappropriate for someone with the Claimant’s condition. The EAT stated that adjustments must be reasonable in both practicality and safety.

In relation to discrimination and harassment claims, the EAT determined that the Tribunal had not erred in its findings.

Finally, the EAT accepted the ET’s finding that the dismissal was a proportionate response to a situation where the Claimant could not be reasonably accommodated in her role.

Takeaway Points

While employers are under a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, those adjustments must be both practical and safe within the working environment. Where adjustments pose a material safety risk or are operationally unfeasible, refusal may be justified.

Requests for flexible hours must be weighed against service delivery needs. If a role cannot be feasibly split and coverage is impractical, then an employer’s refusal may be lawful.

Where recommended equipment carries acknowledged health and safety risks, an employer may reasonably decline to provide them.

Dismissals based on ill health can be lawful if the employee is unable to perform core duties even with reasonable adjustments, and the dismissal is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, for operational efficiency and patient safety.

If you or someone you know are dealing with a similar issue, please contact us for further assistance.