In Sohrabi-Karyani v Brighton and Hove Bus and Coach Company Ltd, Sohrabi-Karyani (SK) was assaulted while driving his bus. He was punched in the face, resulting in double/blurred vision in his right eye. This meant he could no longer drive a bus, as his PSV license was suspended, nor could he drive a car. After 6 months’ absence, SK was unable to return to work as he was still undergoing investigations for his eye and still unable to drive. SK was subsequently called to a capability meeting and dismissed.

SK appealed. During the process a vacancy for a night cleaner arose. A medical report confirmed SK was fit for the position, but highlighted some risks, and suggested that a risk assessment be conducted with SK. A manager conducted the assessment, but did not involve SK or discuss the findings with him. The employer nevertheless decided it could not place SK in the night cleaner position because of the risks of vehicles moving around at night, dim lighting in some areas and safety goggles might hamper SK’s vision. SK’s dismissal was confirmed.

An ET upheld SK’s claim of disability arising in consequence of his disability, under S.15 of the Equality Act 2010. The ET found that SK’s long-term visual impairment meant that he was a disabled person. SK’s dismissal was because he could no longer drive a bus due to his visual impairment. This amounted to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of SK’s disability. Turning to justification, the ET decided that while the employer had a legitimate aim of ensuring a safe place of work, its treatment of SK was not a proportionate means of achieving that aim. This was because:

• SK had not been involved in the risk assessment, nor were his views sought.
• Given the risks identified, a proportionate response would have been to consider other options to achieve a less discriminatory way of achieving the legitimate aim, e.g. providing a ‘buddy’ for a limited period, doing the work during the day by swapping shifts on a temporary basis or ask SK to undergo a trial period.

The aim of this update is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for further details.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.