And speaking of empathy (or lack of it) brings me to the case of Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd & Others, in which Employment Appeal Tribunal assessed  whether a rail worker who was prescribed medical cannabis for a disability had been the victim of disability discrimination after failing a workplace drug and alcohol test.

Mr Jack Truman had a long and successful career in the rail industry, having held a Sentinel card (the mandatory safety qualification required for safety-critical rail work) continuously since 2009. After a diagnosis of genetic haemochromatosis – an incurable condition causing chronic joint pain – in 2022 he decided he did not want to rely on opiates long-term. As an alternative he was prescribed medical cannabis to help manage his symptoms.

In May 2022, Mr Truman applied to SPL Powerlines UK Ltd for a safety-critical role as a Lift Planner. The job offer was conditional on him passing a drug and alcohol test administered by Express Medicals, under a policy set by Network Rail. He openly disclosed his prescription and medical condition at the testing appointment. Despite this, and despite Network Rail's own policy stating that a positive result should be recorded as a pass where there is a legitimate medical need, Express Medicals recorded a fail. As a result, Powerlines withdrew the job offer and Network Rail imposed an automatic five-year ban from safety-critical rail work, with no effective right of appeal available to him as a prospective employee rather than an existing employee.

Mr Truman brought claims of disability discrimination against all three organisations, arguing that the ban and the refusal of an appeal were directly linked to his lawful, prescribed use of medical cannabis to manage a recognised disability.

At first instance, the Employment Tribunal found that, had Network Rail's own policy been applied correctly, Mr Truman's test result should have been recorded as a pass rather than a fail. Despite this, all of his claims were dismissed on various grounds. The ET held that Network Rail was a “qualifications body” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, and that the drug and alcohol test formed part of a lawful “competence standard” which is generally immune from direct discrimination claims. It also found that Mr Truman had not shown he was at a substantial disadvantage compared with a non-disabled comparator. Notably, the ET commented that it believed an injustice had occurred and expressed hope that its decision would encourage the parties to revisit the ban, even though it could not uphold his claims as pleaded.

Mr Truman appealed to the EAT. The EAT dismissed his appeal on the “competence standard” issue, agreeing that the requirement to pass the test (rather than the process for adjusting a result) was the relevant standard, and that this was correctly applied. However, the EAT allowed his appeal on the “substantial disadvantage” issue as against Network Rail, finding that the ET's reasoning on whether he had been put at a comparative disadvantage was unclear and inadequately explained. This part of his reasonable adjustments claim was remitted to the ET for reconsideration. His equivalent appeal against Powerlines was dismissed, as the narrower complaint against Powerlines (failure to support an appeal) did not raise the same disadvantage.

This case is a reminder that policies designed to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and candidates, such as converting a drug test “fail” to a “pass” where there is a legitimate medical need, must actually be applied in practice, not just exist on paper. Employers and third-party providers acting on their behalf should ensure decision-makers have full visibility of relevant medical information before reaching outcomes that could end someone's career, and should build in a genuine route for prospective employees, not just existing staff, to challenge decisions that may be discriminatory.