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.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant sustained a serious back injury at work on 30 March 2019.
- The claimant returned to work in September 2019 with adjustments including night shifts and standby shifts.
- In April 2021, the claimant was rostered to work 12-hour day and night shifts, which aggravated his back condition.
- The respondent required the claimant to obtain a sick note if he could not work 12-hour shifts.
- The claimant was dismissed on 28 July 2021 on grounds of capability due to ill health.
- The respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against the claimant arising from disability.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as a security officer for Ultimate Security Services, later transferring to CIS Security Ltd.
-
Back injury at work
The claimant sustained a serious back injury, resulting in a muscle tear in his spine.
-
Sickness absence began
The claimant was off work for five and a half months due to his back injury.
-
Return to work with adjustments
The claimant returned to work on night shifts and standby shifts as reasonable adjustments.
-
Claimant emailed about roster concerns
The claimant emailed managers stating he could not manage the new roster of 12-hour shifts.
-
Claimant requested standby shifts
The claimant asked to be reverted to standby shifts on health grounds.
-
Claimant required to produce sick note
Mr De Sousa asked the claimant to provide a doctor's note justifying inability to work 12-hour shifts.
-
Formal review meeting
A meeting was held to discuss the claimant's long-term sickness absence; the claimant raised concerns about reasonable adjustments.
-
Return to work meeting
A meeting was held to discuss the claimant's condition and return to work; no warning of dismissal was given.
-
Verbal notice of dismissal
The claimant was verbally dismissed on grounds of capability due to ill health.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment ended; he was offered an appeal but did not attend.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the security officer was unfairly dismissed on capability grounds, whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability, and whether he was discriminated against because of something arising from his disability.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld claims for unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, and victimisation. The direct disability discrimination claim was dismissed.
The key reasons were:
- The employer did not adequately consult the claimant or obtain up-to-date medical evidence before dismissing him.
- The employer failed to make reasonable adjustments by not allowing the claimant to work his previous shift pattern of six-hour shifts with occasional 12-hour shifts.
- The claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising from his disability, such as being required to work 12-hour shifts and being dismissed.
- The claimant was victimised for raising grievances about his treatment.
Compensation is to be determined at a later hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must obtain up-to-date medical evidence before dismissing on capability grounds, especially if the employee offers updated reports.
- Refusing an employee's request for reasonable adjustments, such as a modified shift pattern, can lead to a finding of disability discrimination.
- Raising a grievance about disability-related treatment is a protected act; penalising an employee for it can amount to victimisation.
- A long-serving employee is entitled to a fair process, including proper consultation and consideration of alternatives to dismissal.
What this case shows
This case highlights the risks employers face when they dismiss an employee on capability grounds without following a fair process. The security officer, who had six years' service, sustained a serious back injury at work in March 2019. After a period of absence, he returned with adjustments, including night shifts and standby shifts. However, in April 2021, the employer rostered him for 12-hour day and night shifts, which aggravated his condition.
Despite the employee's requests to revert to his previous shift pattern, the employer insisted he provide a sick note if he could not work the longer shifts. He was eventually dismissed in July 2021 on grounds of capability. The tribunal found that the employer did not adequately consult him or obtain up-to-date medical evidence, and that the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided these findings by taking several steps. First, they should have obtained an up-to-date medical report before making a decision, especially when the employee offered one. Second, they should have properly considered reasonable adjustments, such as allowing the employee to work six-hour shifts with occasional 12-hour shifts. Third, they should not have required the employee to provide a sick note simply because he could not work the rostered shifts. Finally, they should not have treated the employee unfavourably for raising grievances about his treatment.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employers must follow a fair process when dismissing on capability grounds, particularly for long-serving employees. It also shows that failing to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees can lead to successful discrimination claims. The tribunal upheld claims for unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, and victimisation. Compensation will be determined at a later hearing.
Similar cases
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.
Accountant dismissed after 15 months' sick leave: tribunal rejects discrimination and whistleblowing claims
An accountant with 15 years' service was fairly dismissed for incapability after 15 months' sick leave. The tribunal rejected her claims of disability discrimination, victimisation, and whistleblowing.
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.
Dismissed after 12 years due to long-term sickness: employer's redeployment efforts upheld
A Food Technology Technician with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for capability after a long-term sickness absence, the tribunal ruled, finding the employer had properly considered redeployment and made reasonable adjustments.