Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Claimant, a radiology nurse with chronic urticaria exacerbated by heat and pressure from lead aprons, requested reasonable adjustments including lighter lead aprons, duty rotation with cardiology nurses, monitoring from behind protective screens, and reduced room temperature. The Respondent, South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, failed to implement these adjustments despite occupational health recommendations and evidence of their feasibility. The Tribunal found the Respondent's refusal unreasonable, concluding that adjustments like lighter aprons and monitoring from behind screens could have avoided the Claimant's substantial disadvantage. The Trust's inaction led to the Claimant's departure and a successful disability discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010.
Issues
- The tribunal found no dispute that the Respondent was aware the PCP (lead apron use) would exacerbate the Claimant's skin condition and cause a substantial disadvantage.
- The tribunal confirmed that the Claimant's chronic urticaria constitutes a disability as defined by the Equality Act 2010, with no dispute on this matter.
- The tribunal determined the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments (light lead aprons, duty rotation, monitoring from behind screens, and room temperature reduction) to avoid the substantial disadvantage caused by the PCP, despite evidence these steps were feasible.
- The tribunal concluded that the PCP (prolonged lead apron use) exacerbated the Claimant's skin condition, creating a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled colleagues.
- The tribunal agreed that the PCP requiring the wearing of protective lead during radiation procedures was in place and applied to the Claimant.
- The tribunal found no dispute that the Respondent was aware of the Claimant's disability from the outset of the relevant period.
Holdings
- The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's argument that the zero-gravity protection system was a necessary adjustment. It concluded that the system was not a reasonable step given the short time before the Claimant's retirement, her sick leave during this period, and the logistical challenges of implementation.
- The Tribunal determined that the Respondent's PCP (requirement to wear protective lead aprons during radiation procedures) put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. This was due to the exacerbation of her skin condition from prolonged heat and pressure, leading to sickness absence and potential dismissal on ill health grounds.
- The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the Claimant's disability (urticaria exacerbated by heat and pressure from lead aprons). The adjustments deemed reasonable included providing light lead aprons, rotating duties with cardiology nurses, allowing monitoring from behind the protective screen during radiation, and addressing the high temperature in room 5. The Respondent did not satisfy the Tribunal that these steps were unreasonable.
- The Tribunal found that the Respondent's refusal to trial the proposed adjustments (monitoring from behind the screen and using light lead aprons) was unreasonable. This refusal was based on a fixed view of existing practices rather than a genuine assessment of the adjustments' feasibility or impact on patient care.
- The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising from her disability after the Claimant withdrew this part of her case during the hearing.
Remedies
The Tribunal concluded the Claimant's disability discrimination claim under section 20-21 Equality Act 2010 succeeded. The Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments, and a remedy hearing will determine financial losses and injury to feelings compensation. The parties were given 21 days to resolve matters before issuing directions for a formal remedy hearing.
Legal Principles
- The tribunal assessed the Respondent's duty of care to patients under the RCN/RCR guidelines but concluded that the duty to make reasonable adjustments for the Claimant's disability (chronic urticaria) outweighed the theoretical risks of adjustments like monitoring from behind protective screens. Patient safety was not compromised by the proposed adjustments.
- The tribunal adopted a purposive approach to the Equality Act 2010, emphasizing the need to interpret reasonable adjustment obligations broadly to avoid substantial disadvantage for disabled employees. This included evaluating whether guidelines (e.g., RCN/RCR) could be modified to accommodate the Claimant's needs.
- The tribunal applied Section 136 Equality Act 2010, reversing the burden of proof to require the employer to demonstrate adjustments (light lead aprons, duty rotation, monitoring behind screens, and room temperature reduction) were unreasonable. The employer failed to satisfy this duty, leading to a finding of disability discrimination.
Precedent Name
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Fareham College Corporation v Walters
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Department of Work and Pensions v Alam
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Foster
Cited Statute
Equality Act 2010
Judge Name
- David Dorman-Smith
- Sweeney
- Stephen Carter
Passage Text
- We do not suggest that it is not difficult, but 'difficulty' is not the test. The difficulty of putting a proposed arrangement in place is undoubtedly a factor, but not an answer to the question of whether it is reasonable to make an adjustment.
- We are not satisfied that what the Respondent refers to as medical advice not to wear lead aprons was in fact advice to that effect. Further, even if it could be so described, it was far from clear...
- The Respondent failed to make these adjustments and failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments. The complaint under section 20-21 Equality Act 2010 succeeds.