The case of Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Mr M Miller, as documented in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision [2024] EAT 37, presents a significant examination of disability discrimination and the duty of reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. This case highlights the complexities involved when an employee with a disability is unable to continue in their current role and the employer's obligations to consider reasonable adjustments, including the possibility of redeployment to a different role. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles involved and the factual matrix that led to the tribunal's decision.
Background to case
Mr. M Miller was employed by Rentokil Initial UK Ltd as a pest control technician, a role that was physically demanding and involved working at heights. In March 2017, Mr. Miller was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which progressively impacted his ability to perform his duties. Despite various adjustments made by the employer, by early 2019, it was concluded that Mr. Miller could no longer continue in his role due to the substantial disadvantage posed by his disability.
In February 2019, Mr. Miller applied for a service administrator role within the company. However, after an interview and written tests, he was not offered the position. Subsequently, a capability meeting was held, and Mr. Miller was dismissed as no suitable alternative role was available. His internal appeal against the dismissal was unsuccessful. Mr. Miller then brought claims to the employment tribunal, alleging failures to comply with the duty of reasonable adjustment, discrimination arising from disability, and unfair dismissal.
Legal framework and tribunal's findings
The tribunal's decision focused on the duty of reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, particularly section 20(3), which requires employers to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial disadvantage to disabled employees. The tribunal found that Rentokil Initial UK Ltd had failed to make reasonable adjustments by not offering Mr. Miller a trial period in the service administrator role, which could have mitigated the disadvantage he faced due to his disability.
The tribunal emphasised that the duty to make reasonable adjustments could include transferring a disabled employee to a different role, even if it required a trial period to assess suitability. The tribunal noted that the employer's assessment of Mr. Miller's suitability for the role was not decisive, and the objective question was whether it was reasonable to offer a trial period. The tribunal concluded that it was indeed reasonable, given Mr. Miller's experience and the potential for training to address any skill gaps.
Appeal and legal reasoning
Rentokil Initial UK Ltd appealed the tribunal's decision, challenging the conclusion that it was a reasonable adjustment to offer Mr. Miller a trial period in the service administrator role. The appeal focused on whether the tribunal had correctly applied the legal principles regarding reasonable adjustments and whether the decision was justified based on the evidence presented.
The EAT upheld the tribunal's decision, affirming that the duty to make reasonable adjustments is broad and can include offering a trial period in a new role. The EAT highlighted that the tribunal had carefully considered the evidence, including Mr. Miller's performance in the interview and tests, and had rightly concluded that a trial period was a reasonable step to take. The EAT also noted that the employer's failure to consider a trial period was a significant factor in the finding of unfair dismissal.
Implications for employers
This case underscores the importance of employers actively engaging in the process of making reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. Employers must consider a wide range of adjustments, including redeployment to alternative roles, and should not dismiss the possibility of trial periods to assess suitability. The decision also highlights the need for employers to provide clear evidence and reasoning when deciding not to offer adjustments, as the burden of proof can shift to the employer to justify their actions.
Employers should ensure that their policies and practices are aligned with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and that they are prepared to demonstrate the steps taken to accommodate disabled employees. This includes documenting the decision-making process and providing training to managers on the legal obligations and practical considerations involved in making reasonable adjustments.
Additional considerations
Training and development: Employers should consider providing training to employees who are being redeployed to new roles, especially if the role requires skills that the employee does not currently possess. This can be a crucial factor in determining whether a trial period is a reasonable adjustment.
Consultation and communication: Effective communication with the employee about their needs and the potential adjustments is essential. Employers should engage in a meaningful dialogue with the employee to explore all possible adjustments and document these discussions.
Legal compliance: Employers must ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and other relevant legislation. This includes understanding the legal definitions of disability and reasonable adjustments and applying these principles consistently across the organisation.
Case precedents: The case of Archibald v Fife Council [2004] ICR 954 was cited as a leading authority on reasonable adjustments and redeployment. Employers should be aware of relevant case law and how it may impact their obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
This case highlights employers' obligations to consider trial periods in alternative roles for disabled employees at risk of dismissal and emphasises the need for employers to assess adjustments with an open mind rather than through a standard competitive hiring process.
This article was generated using Lex HR, an AI tool designed to assist HR professionals with employment law. If you find the content helpful, please explore Lex HR and sign up for a free trial to see how it can benefit your HR practices.
