The case of Parnell v Royal Mail Group Ltd is a significant example of how the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) addresses the issue of reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Mr. Parnell, who worked as a postman/driver for Royal Mail, suffered from depression and anxiety, conditions that significantly impacted his ability to perform day-to-day activities. The case revolves around the employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments and the subsequent legal proceedings that ensued when Mr. Parnell felt these duties were not met. This case provides a nuanced understanding of the legal obligations of employers and the complexities involved in managing disability discrimination claims.
Background and legal proceedings
Initial complaints and misconduct proceedings
Mr. Parnell's issues began when he raised complaints of bullying and harassment against his manager in 2017. These complaints were investigated and found to be made in bad faith, leading to misconduct proceedings against him. As a result, Mr. Parnell was issued a two-year serious warning in April 2018. He refused to return to work until this warning was rescinded, which Royal Mail refused to do. This refusal led to Mr. Parnell going on long-term sick leave starting January 2018.
Employment Tribunal claims
Mr. Parnell brought 31 claims against Royal Mail, which were divided into two periods for the Employment Tribunal (ET) hearings. The first ET addressed claims up to early 2020, including the bullying allegations and misconduct proceedings. The second ET focused on claims related to absence management and Mr. Parnell's eventual dismissal in June 2020. The first ET upheld that Royal Mail failed to make reasonable adjustments by not reviewing the bad faith finding and not removing the warning. However, the second ET dismissed all claims, finding that any unfavourable treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, specifically regular and reliable staff attendance.
Appeal and EAT decision
Mr. Parnell appealed the second ET's decision, arguing that the failure to remove the warning constituted a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The EAT dismissed the appeal, noting that the warning had expired by the time of the second tribunal's consideration, and thus, removing it would not have been a reasonable adjustment. The EAT emphasized that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of ensuring regular attendance and cooperation with management.
Legal implications and employer responsibilities
Duty to make reasonable adjustments
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for employees with disabilities. This duty arises when a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons. In Mr. Parnell's case, the failure to remove the warning was initially seen as a failure to make reasonable adjustments. However, the EAT's decision highlights that the reasonableness of an adjustment is context-dependent and must be assessed based on the circumstances at the time.
Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
The concept of a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim is crucial in determining whether an employer's actions are justified. In this case, the EAT found that Royal Mail's actions were justified as they aimed to ensure regular and reliable attendance, which is a legitimate business objective. This decision underscores the importance for employers to clearly articulate and document their legitimate aims when defending against claims of discrimination or failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Practical steps for employers
Implementing reasonable adjustments
Employers should proactively engage with employees to identify potential reasonable adjustments. This includes reviewing any disciplinary actions or warnings that may disproportionately affect disabled employees. Employers should document all efforts to accommodate employees and ensure that any adjustments made are effective in reducing or eliminating the disadvantage faced by the employee.
Managing absence and dismissal
When managing long-term absence or considering dismissal, employers must ensure that all decisions are based on objective criteria and are proportionate to the aims they seek to achieve. Regular communication with the employee, offering meetings to discuss potential adjustments, and documenting all interactions are essential steps in demonstrating compliance with legal obligations.
Additional considerations
The Parnell case illustrates the impact of tribunal decisions on employer practices. Employers should be aware that tribunal findings in one period may not necessarily influence decisions in another, especially when different facts or timeframes are considered. This highlights the importance of treating each case on its merits and ensuring that all relevant factors are considered in decision-making processes.
The case sets a precedent for how tribunals may interpret the duty to make reasonable adjustments and the concept of proportionate means. Employers should continuously review their policies and practices to ensure they align with legal standards and are prepared to make necessary adjustments to accommodate employees with disabilities. This proactive approach can help mitigate risks and promote a more equitable workplace.
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.
