And speaking of physical effort brings me to the case of Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (NRI), and a question of disability versus capability.

Employed by NRI as a Customer Service Assistant from March 2020, some of Mr Chowdhury’s responsibilities included patrolling the station on foot, conducting security checks and assisting customers, along with occasional assignments to the helpdesk. All CSAs, regardless of their primary duties, were required to perform all tasks, although some CSAs were primarily based at the helpdesk.

Soon after starting, Mr Chowdhury developed symptoms of plantar fasciitis, a chronic condition that affects the foot muscles and impedes mobility, limiting the ability to stand for long periods of time. Mr Chowdhury struggled with the physical demands of his role, particularly the standing and walking requirements and as a result, was initially placed on the helpdesk duties only and later added to NRI's redeployment register.

Between October 2020 and April 2021, Mr Chowdhury was absent from work and during this time, he applied for three alternative roles within NRI but was unsuccessful in securing a position. Medical evidence from Mr Chowdhury’s doctor and the occupational health report indicated that he was unfit to perform his duties from July 2020 until his dismissal in August 2021. He was, however, deemed fit for a sedentary role on part-time basis. Despite being placed on the redeployment register, Mr Chowdhury was dismissed in August 2021 after a series of capability meetings.

Following this, Mr Chowdhury brought claims and alleged that NRI had failed to make reasonable adjustments, specifically by not redeploying him into another sedentary role and by dismissing him without providing adequate time to find a suitable position.

The ET dismissed Mr Chowdhury’s claims, including his assertions that NRI had failed to make reasonable adjustments and had discriminated against him due to his disability.

The ET ruled that NRI was not obligated to redeploy Mr Chowdhury into roles for which he did not meet the essential criteria. Specifically, his applications for roles as an HR Administrator and Data Controller were rejected because these roles required relevant prior experience and advanced skills in Microsoft Office, neither of which Mr Chowdhury possessed. Furthermore, Mr Chowdhury had only applied for three internal roles. The ET found that it would not be reasonable to dis-apply these essential criteria or provide additional training as Mr Chowdhury.

The ET also held that redeploying Mr Chowdhury to a helpdesk position was not a reasonable adjustment as the role still required standing and walking, which were tasks that Mr Chowdhury could not perform due to his disability.

The ET rejected the argument that NRI should have allowed Mr Chowdhury more time to find an alternative role. By the time of his dismissal, Mr Chowdhury had been absent for over a year, with no clear indication for recovery. The ET concluded that extending the time would not have achieved anything and that the decision to dismiss was reasonable under the circumstances.

Finally, the ET found that Mr Chowdhury’s dismissal did not amount to discrimination arising from disability. NRI had a legitimate aim to ensure that employees were able to carry out their roles.

Mr Chowdhury appealed the ET’s decision to the EAT, but his appeal was also dismissed.

The EAT upheld the ET’s findings and agreed that NRI was not required to redeploy Mr Chowdhury into roles for which he did not meet the essential criteria. The EAT reiterated that an employer is not required to change the essential criteria that were integral to the roles as part of a reasonable adjustment. The EAT also agreed that redeploying Mr Chowdhury to the helpdesk was not a reasonable adjustment given the requirement to perform duties that involved standing and walking.

This case highlights that whilst employers have a duty to explore reasonable adjustments, they also have a legitimate interest in ensuring that employees can carry out their roles. The case highlights that dismissal may be reasonable after a long period of illness or incapacity, especially if the employee cannot perform their duties and there is no realistic prospect of recovery.

The case also provides important guidance to employers in that they are not required to relax or remove essential job criteria when making reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. Employers should clearly define and document the essential criteria for roles to avoid challenges on this point.