This case related to the duty imposed on employers by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate employees with disabilities.
Mr Spence worked as an IT manager for the respondent firm. He suffered from a severe vascular problem causing acute pain in his arm and rendering him unable to work around August 2004. One year later it was believed that his prospects of ever making a successful return to the workplace were dwindling and as a result the Respondents terminated his employment.
Mr Spence proceeded to take legal action against his employers as he argued that their failure to make an assessment of potential reasonable adjustments, which may have been of benefit to him, was, of itself, enough to constitute a failure to make reasonable adjustments as required by the 1995 legislation.
Both parties accepted before the verdict was delivered that in the event the Tribunal found in favour of Mr Spence then an earlier decision that his dismissal was non-discriminatory would have to be reversed.
The EAT ultimately found in favour of the Respondent company. Justice Elias pointed out that the Claimant’s case was that the Respondent’s failures were based around a failure to send him for a full medical examination. The Claimant had suggested that this effectively meant that a full assessment of reasonable adjustments had not been conducted. In rejecting this contention the judge stressed that such a failure was not included in the relatively exhaustive list of potential grounds for a claim under the 1995 Act.
The EAT did point out that it remained a highly recommended practice to conduct a full assessment and consultation with an employee in such cases because failure to do so could result in any other potentially reasonable adjustments being overlooked and such an oversight may then become actionable.
In this instance however the Respondent company emerged successful although Mr Spence was given permission to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.