Case Study: Disability Discrimination in Mr. Raymond Cairns v. Royal Mail Group Ltd

Mr Raymond Cairns v The Royal Mail Group Ltd [2024] EAT 129 

Background 

Mr Raymond Cairns, employed by Royal Mail since 1990, sustained a knee injury in 2016, leading to a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Due to his condition, he could no longer perform outdoor duties as a postman. He was placed in a temporary, indoor role but was dismissed on ill-health grounds in February 2018. His internal appeal was rejected in May 2018. Mr Cairns claimed that Royal Mail failed to make reasonable adjustments and that his dismissal constituted disability discrimination under sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010. 

Employment Tribunal Decision

The tribunal dismissed Mr Cairns’ claims, concluding that keeping him in a supernumerary role indefinitely was not reasonable. The tribunal found no alternative role for him, and Royal Mail was not required to create a new position. 

Appeal Outcome

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the tribunal had failed to properly consider Mr Cairns’ argument that he could have been retained in his temporary role until the impending merger of two delivery offices, which would have made permanent indoor roles available. The tribunal also failed to consider whether it would have been reasonable to adjust the indoor role by exempting Mr Cairns from occasional outdoor duties which were part of the role. 

Key Points

• The EAT upheld the appeal, ruling that the tribunal did not fully assess whether Mr Cairns could have reasonably been retained until the merger. 

• The case has been remitted to a newly constituted tribunal for reconsideration, specifically focusing on the availability of indoor roles and reasonable adjustments at the time of the appeal decision. 

Implications for Employees and Union Representatives 

This case highlights several important points for employees and union representatives when it comes to disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments in the workplace: 

• Temporary Roles and Future Opportunities: If an employee with a disability is placed in a temporary role due to their condition, this case shows that employers should not dismiss them without fully considering any upcoming organisational changes (such as mergers or restructures) that might provide permanent roles better suited to their needs. 

• Reasonable Adjustments to alternative roles: Employees and union representatives should ensure that when looking at alternative roles employers explore all possible roles, including those that would be suitable if adapted to fit the employee's needs. 

• Short-Term Solutions Can Matter: Even temporary adjustments—such as allowing an employee to stay in a role for a short period while changes take place—can be reasonable. This is something employees and their representatives should advocate for during negotiations with employers, especially in cases where longer-term adjustments are on the horizon.