In this month's round-up, prepared by LexHR, we examine four recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decisions covering disability discrimination in pre-employment drug testing, the burden of proof in discrimination claims, procedural errors in tribunal proceedings, and race and sex discrimination arising from exclusion from training opportunities.
Prescribed medical cannabis and disability discrimination in pre-employment drug testing
In Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd, Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd & Express Medicals Ltd [2026] EAT 54, a rail worker with haemochromatosis was prescribed medical cannabis to manage chronic pain. He pre-declared his prescription at a mandatory drug and alcohol test, but Express Medicals recorded a ‘fail’, triggering an automatic five-year ban on safety-critical roles via Network Rail’s Sentinel system. Powerlines withdrew its conditional job offer the following day. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim, treating the Sentinel card as a ‘competence standard’ that shielded the outcome from disability discrimination liability. The EAT allowed the appeal, holding that Network Rail’s own policy required a fail to be recorded as a pass where a Medical Review Officer was satisfied of a legitimate medical need — a process that was never followed. The EAT confirmed that pre-employment candidates are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and that third-party occupational health providers can themselves generate liability where their conduct causes or contributes to discriminatory treatment. The case was remitted.
Key learning points
Employers using third-party occupational health providers remain responsible for ensuring those providers apply the employer’s own policy correctly, including any medical exception process. Contracts should specify this obligation and the consequences of non-compliance.
A testing policy that includes a legitimate medical need exception must be actively applied; failure to do so before triggering automatic sanctions carries significant legal risk.
Burden of proof in discrimination claims: the ‘blanket approach’ error
In Clifton Diocese v Miss Janet Parker [2026] EAT 68, a non-Catholic employee was dismissed following a disciplinary process. The Employment Tribunal upheld four heads of religion or belief discrimination, citing added allegations, a rushed hearing, failure to accommodate the claimant’s health, and mocking conduct by an external investigator. The EAT allowed the appeal on three grounds. First, the tribunal had adopted a ‘blanket approach’ under section 136 Equality Act 2010, relying on a composite list of criticisms directed overwhelmingly at individuals other than those whose knowledge of the claimant’s religion was relevant at each decision point. Second, it had failed to anchor the inference of discrimination to a person who knew of the protected characteristic at the material time. Third, no proper analysis had been applied to whether the external investigator’s conduct was ‘related to’ religion or belief as required by section 26.
Key learning points
Each alleged act of less favourable treatment must be linked to a specific individual who was aware of the protected characteristic at the relevant time. A composite list of process failures does not establish the stage-one inference without more.
Each element of a discrimination or harassment complaint must be assessed individually; employers retain liability for the conduct of external investigators.
Procedural errors in proceedings: how tribunals should respond
In Car Sales Solutions Ltd v Mr V Riekstins [2026] EAT 72, the EAT considered how a tribunal should deal with administrative and other procedural errors arising during proceedings, and whether contaminated findings should be remitted or addressed within the original hearing. The judgment draws a practical distinction between errors capable of remedy within the same proceedings and those requiring a fresh tribunal, and confirms that procedural failures can unwind findings that would otherwise have stood.
Key learning points
Procedural concerns must be raised at the earliest opportunity; failure to object at the time may limit grounds available on appeal.
Tribunal case management decisions, however informal, can have binding consequences. The appropriate remedy — remission to the same or a different tribunal — depends on the nature and extent of the irregularity.
Race and sex discrimination: fixed-term status and training opportunities
In Komeng v National Highways Ltd [2026] EAT 75, a claimant on a fixed-term contract alleged race and sex discrimination after being excluded from an HR Business Partner training programme. By the time the programme ran he had become a permanent employee, though he had been on a fixed-term contract when the training was originally arranged. The EAT upheld the tribunal’s dismissal of the claims, confirming it was entitled to find that the exclusion was attributable to the claimant’s fixed-term status at the time the training was scheduled rather than to his race or sex. Critically, the claimant had himself acknowledged in correspondence that he would understand why he had not been offered the training if it had taken place during his fixed-term contract period — which it had. Tribunals must test the employer’s explanation against the facts as found, including the claimant’s own contemporaneous statements.
Key learning points
Access to training should be documented with decisions linked to objective criteria such as contract type or start date.
Contemporaneous written communications from claimants can be significant evidence in defending discrimination claims; all such material should be retained.
Bottom line for HR
Across disability, religion or belief, procedural integrity, and race and sex discrimination, these decisions demand precision at every stage. Medical exception policies must be actively applied by whoever administers them. The burden of proof requires individual attribution, not composite reasoning. Procedural errors must be raised promptly. And discrimination defences must rest on objective, contemporaneous evidence. Shortcuts in reasoning or process carry significant legal risk.
Across disability, religion or belief, procedural integrity, and race and sex discrimination, these decisions demand precision at every stage. Medical exception policies must be actively applied by whoever administers them. The burden of proof requires individual attribution, not composite reasoning. Procedural errors must be raised promptly. And discrimination defences must rest on objective, contemporaneous evidence. Shortcuts in reasoning or process carry significant legal risk.
This article was created with insights from Lex HR - your always-on HR legal assistant. Lex HR helps HR professionals navigate complex employment law with confidence, providing real-time, reliable advice tailored to your needs. Try it free today and see how much easier compliance can be.