Security guard dismissed after losing sight: employer failed to explore redeployment
A security guard who lost most of his sight was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against by Mitie Ltd, which failed to consider reasonable adjustments or a vacant role he suggested.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #sight-loss
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #failure-to-consult
- #redeployment-opportunity
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a security guard from January 2018 to September 2021.
- He lost 100% vision in his left eye and 75% in his right eye due to bilateral Non-Anterior Arteritic Ischemic Neuropathy in January 2021.
- The respondent knew of his disability by March 2021 but took minimal steps to explore adjustments or redeployment.
- The claimant suggested he could take over a role vacated by a retiring colleague, but the respondent did not investigate.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on grounds of capability in September 2021 without adequate investigation or consideration of adjustments.
Timeline
-
Claimant reports sick with eyesight issues
Claimant reported sick due to deteriorating eyesight; later diagnosed with bilateral Non-Anterior Arteritic Ischemic Neuropathy.
-
Claimant registered as sight impaired
Claimant was registered as sight impaired by a consultant and registered disabled with Portsmouth City Council.
-
Claimant sends medical documents to respondent
Claimant sent sick notes, disability registration card, and hospital letters to the respondent, putting them on notice of his disability.
-
Occupational health referral made
Respondent referred claimant to Optima Health for occupational health assessment.
-
Occupational health report received
Claimant received a copy of the occupational health report stating no adjustments could be made and he was unfit to return to work.
-
Claimant raises grievance
Claimant raised a grievance about lack of support, failure to explore adjustments, and issues with sick pay.
-
Meeting to discuss redeployment
Meeting held to discuss possible roles; claimant expressed interest in a role vacated by Mr Carr but no action taken.
-
Grievance and capability hearings
Both hearings held on the same day; capability meeting led to dismissal decision.
-
Claimant dismissed
Claimant received notice of termination on grounds of ill health and capability.
-
Mr Carr gives notice of retirement
Mr Carr, whose role the claimant had suggested he could fill, gave notice of retirement effective 24 December 2021.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed the security guard on capability grounds and whether it discriminated against him by failing to make reasonable adjustments and dismissing him for a reason arising from his disability.
The outcome
The tribunal found that Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed the security guard and discriminated against him under the Equality Act 2010.
Key reasons:
- Mitie knew of his disability by March 2021 but took minimal steps to explore adjustments or redeployment.
- The occupational health report was accepted without challenge, and the claimant's suggestion of taking over a retiring colleague's role was not investigated.
- The dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses.
Compensation will be determined at a later hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must actively explore reasonable adjustments and redeployment opportunities before dismissing an employee on capability grounds due to disability.
- A single occupational health report should not be accepted uncritically; employers should seek updated or further medical evidence if the employee's condition may improve or alternative roles exist.
- If an employee suggests a specific vacant role as a reasonable adjustment, the employer should investigate it promptly rather than ignoring it.
- Disability discrimination claims can succeed even if the employer knew about the disability for only a few months before dismissal.
This case shows how a failure to properly consider an employee's disability and explore available options can lead to both unfair dismissal and disability discrimination findings. The security guard, who had worked for Mitie Ltd for three years, lost most of his sight in early 2021. Despite being registered as sight impaired and providing medical evidence, the employer took minimal steps to find a suitable alternative role.
What went wrong
Mitie Ltd relied heavily on an occupational health report that stated no adjustments could be made and the employee was unfit to return to his existing role. However, the tribunal noted that the employer did not consider whether the report was up-to-date or whether alternative roles existed. The claimant himself suggested he could fill a supervisory role that a colleague was about to vacate, but Mitie never investigated this possibility. The colleague gave notice of retirement a month after the dismissal, meaning the role would have become available.
Why the result matters
The case highlights that employers cannot simply accept a medical report that says 'no adjustments' without further enquiry, especially when the employee has identified potential alternative roles. The tribunal also emphasised that the duty to make reasonable adjustments is ongoing and requires proactive engagement. For employees in similar situations, this decision reinforces that suggesting a specific role can strengthen a claim if the employer ignores it. The remedy hearing will determine compensation, but the liability findings already send a clear message about the importance of proper process in disability-related dismissals.
Similar cases
Production operative dismissed during long-term sick leave: unfair dismissal claim fails on service
A production operative who was dismissed while on sick leave for plantar fasciitis and depression lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service. All disability discrimination claims were also dismissed.
University academic unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy consultation over retained post
A University of Leicester academic was unfairly dismissed when the university failed to properly consult on redundancy selection after changing its proposal to retain a permanent post. The tribunal awarded £72,487.50 in compensation.
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Dismissed after 10-month absence: employer's reasonable adjustments were enough
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an assistant branch manager with 28 years' service who was absent for 10 months with anxiety. The employer had offered multiple adjustments but the claimant insisted on a customer ban.