UK: Disability Discrimination: Reasonable Adjustments

Authors:  Stephen Miller, Corinna Harris, Sophie Jackson, & Charlotte Stern

Mr Truman, a long‑serving rail worker with genetic haemochromatosis, was prescribed medical cannabis for chronic pain. He applied for an office‑based role, which fell within Network Rail’s safety‑critical regime and required a drugs and alcohol test. Network Rail’s policy allowed positive drugs results to be treated as a “pass” where there was a legitimate medical need.

Despite explaining his prescription, the testing company, Express Medicals, recorded his test result as a “fail”, the job offer was withdrawn, and Network Rail imposed a five‑year ban on Mr Truman carrying out safety‑critical work. After his grievances were not upheld, Mr Truman brought claims for disability discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal accepted the drugs test result should have been recorded as a “pass” but dismissed Mr Truman’s discrimination claims, comparing him with a non‑disabled person who had failed a drugs test and finding that the disadvantage from the failure to make reasonable adjustments was not significant.

The EAT held this was the wrong comparator. The correct comparison was with an employee who would have passed the drugs test under the policy’s medical exemption, had it been applied correctly. Further, as the Tribunal had already found that Mr Truman’s result should have been recorded as a pass, it could not properly conclude that the disadvantage he suffered was insignificant. That issue was therefore remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-house Counsel

Employers may find this decision challenging given the importance of safety considerations. However, the EAT’s concern was not with the way safety was prioritised, but with the way Network Rail’s drugs and alcohol policy was applied.

A key lesson is to review/ re-consider any drugs policy that always allows a positive test result to be treated as a “pass” where there is a medical exemption and perhaps go for something a little more nuanced.

Either way, medical exemptions should be supported by clear medical evidence and robust comparator analysis, to reduce the risk of disability discrimination.