Golam Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure [2025] EAT 132

In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") considered the duty to make reasonable adjustments and whether employers have a duty to redeploy a disabled employee even if they do not meet the essential criteria for the role.

The Claimant worked as a Customer Service Assistant at London Bridge Station and suffered from plantar fasciitis, an inflammatory condition affecting mobility. Shortly after he started work in March 2020, and for a series of extended spells until his dismissal, he suffered recurring symptoms of his illness and was absent from work on sick leave.

After his initial absence, the Claimant was temporarily assigned to a helpdesk role and after a further absence, he was placed on the Respondent’s redeployment register. He applied unsuccessfully for three internal roles at the Respondent (HR administrator; document controller; and stores co-ordinator) before being dismissed on capability grounds in August 2021.

The Claimant brought claims in the ET alleging failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability. He claimed that the Respondent ought to have redeployed him into an alternative role (either one of the three roles he had applied for or, alternatively, a receptionist role, or a helpdesk role by “bumping” another member of staff), given longer to find redeployment before dismissal, provided him with additional training, supported with job applications, or permitted him to work split shifts. The Claimant also argued that the decision to dismiss arose in consequence of his disability, and was not proportionate, so it was unlawful.

The ET was critical of the Respondent’s management of the deployment programme and concluded that the duty to make reasonable adjustments during the Claimant’s redeployment search was engaged. However, after assessing the roles, the ET dismissed the Claimant’s claim on the grounds that appointment to the alternative roles was not a reasonable adjustment because the Claimant did not meet the essential criteria for each respective role. It also rejected the claim that the decision to terminate should have been deferred as a reasonable adjustment. Further, the Claimant’s assertions regarding training were too vague and the ET was not satisfied that any training would have made up for his ‘lack of essential competence’ for the roles. Finally, it concluded that the decision to dismiss was proportionate, as any potential lesser measure was already addressed in the reasonable adjustment claims.

The Claimant’s appeal was dismissed and the EAT concluded that:

• The ET correctly determined that redeployment to the HR administrator or data controller roles would not have been a reasonable adjustment as the Claimant did not meet essential criteria for those roles (particularly the requirement for experience in an entry-level role).

• No amount of training would be able to make up for the Claimant's lack of successful prior experience in specialist fields or would have made any difference to the Claimant’s inability to meet the essential criteria.

• Allocation to a helpdesk role would not have been an effective adjustment because the Claimant would still have to stand and walk for lengthy periods in that role, which he could not do.
  

This case provides clarity on the boundaries of reasonable adjustments in capability dismissals. It confirms that there is no obligation on employers to offer or create a role that the employee is not qualified for or is unable to carry out. Whilst the question of whether an employer ought reasonably to have put an employee into a given role is an objective question for the ET, a relevant consideration will be whether the employee met essential role requirements.

The decision also addresses the role of training as a reasonable adjustment. Where there is a significant gap between an employee's abilities and the requirements of alternative roles, and no amount of training would make up for a lack of successful prior experience in specialist fields, training is unlikely to be a reasonable adjustment.