Prison officer with depression denied permanent move away from wings: reasonable adjustments claim fails
A prison officer with 15 years' service who was refused a permanent relocation away from the wings after an assault has lost his claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal found that the employer's offer of a phased return and temporary amended duties was reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a prison officer from December 2004 until October 2020.
- He was assaulted at work on 6 November 2019 and subsequently diagnosed with anxiety and depression.
- The respondent conceded the claimant was disabled and had knowledge of his disability.
- The claimant repeatedly requested a permanent move away from the wings, but the respondent refused.
- The respondent offered a phased return and amended duties for a limited period, which the claimant could not accept.
- The claimant applied for ill-health retirement and his employment ended in October 2020.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a prison officer at Winson Green prison.
-
Requested move away from wings
Claimant emailed Carl Baker requesting a move away from the wings, citing physical and mental benefits.
-
Assaulted at work
Claimant was assaulted by a prisoner at work.
-
Signed off sick
Claimant informed line manager Neil Oakley he was signed off sick due to mental health.
-
Occupational health appointment
Claimant attended occupational health; assessed as not fit for work due to stress and lack of support.
-
Welfare meeting
Claimant stated he did not want to work on wings; request for relocation rejected by Mr Oakley and Governor Smith.
-
Welfare home visit
Claimant reiterated he could not return unless guaranteed not to work on wings.
-
Occupational health report
Occupational health suggested a move away from wings could help return to work.
-
Attendance review meeting
Governor Newton definitively refused to relocate the claimant permanently.
-
Governor Newton's letter
Governor Newton confirmed in writing: 'I will not relocate you to an area such as visits'.
-
Applied for ill-health retirement
Claimant applied for IHR, stating he could not return to any position in the prison.
-
Raised grievance
Claimant raised a detailed grievance alleging discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
-
IHR meeting
Claimant accepted ill-health retirement and resigned.
-
ACAS early conciliation
Claimant contacted ACAS to start tribunal proceedings.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the prison service failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments by refusing to permanently move the claimant away from the wings, and whether the claim was brought in time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Key reasons:
- The tribunal found that the respondent did not have a PCP requiring officers to remain on wings; officers could be moved temporarily, and the claimant was offered a phased return and amended duties for a limited period.
- The permanent relocation sought by the claimant was not a reasonable adjustment because it would have required creating a new role or displacing another officer, and the prison had operational needs.
- The claim was also out of time, as the refusal was a one-off decision in February 2020, and the claim was presented in February 2021 without good reason for the delay.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers are not required to create a new permanent role or displace another employee as a reasonable adjustment; temporary adjustments or alternative support may suffice.
- If you believe you have been denied a reasonable adjustment, you should bring a claim promptly – the time limit is three months from the act of discrimination, not from the end of employment.
- A one-off refusal to make a permanent change is unlikely to be treated as 'continuing conduct' for time limit purposes; each refusal is a discrete act.
- Occupational health recommendations are not binding on employers; they must be weighed against operational needs and other factors.
A long-serving officer's struggle to return after assault
This case highlights the difficult balance between an employee's health needs and an employer's operational requirements. The claimant, a prison officer with 15 years' service, was assaulted at work and developed anxiety and depression. He repeatedly asked to be permanently moved away from the wings, but the prison refused, offering instead a phased return and temporary amended duties. Unable to accept this, he eventually took ill-health retirement.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the prison service had not failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments. The key issue was whether the requested step – a permanent relocation – was a reasonable one. The tribunal accepted that the prison had legitimate operational reasons for refusing: moving the claimant permanently would have required creating a new post or displacing another officer, which was not feasible. The offer of a phased return and temporary duties was considered a reasonable alternative.
Why timing mattered
The claim also failed on time limits. The refusal to relocate was a one-off decision in February 2020, but the claimant did not present his claim until February 2021 – more than three months later. The tribunal rejected the argument that this was 'continuing conduct' and found no grounds to extend time. This serves as a reminder that discrimination claims must be brought promptly, even if employment continues.
What this means for similar cases
For employees, this case shows that a request for a permanent change of role as a reasonable adjustment may be difficult to enforce if the employer can show operational reasons against it. For employers, it confirms that offering temporary adjustments and alternative support can be a reasonable response, especially where a permanent move would cause disruption. However, each case turns on its facts, and a different outcome might arise if the employer had refused all adjustments or ignored medical advice.
Similar cases
Phased return not implemented: employer's failure to follow occupational health advice was disability discrimination
A former employee with a disability succeeded in a reasonable adjustments claim after Ocado failed to implement a phased return to work recommended by occupational health. The tribunal awarded £8,271.35, including £5,000 for injury to feelings.
Dismissed after refusing redeployment: a capability decision that passed the fairness test
A Housing Solutions Assistant with PTSD was fairly dismissed after a lengthy sickness absence when he refused all redeployment options, the tribunal has ruled.
Long-term sickness dismissal: employer's flawed process saved by fair appeal
A station support assistant lost his unfair dismissal claim after 20 months off work. The tribunal found the initial decision to dismiss was premature, but the appeal corrected the flaw.
Meter reader with 16 years' service unfairly dismissed for ill health capability
A meter reader who was dismissed while on long-term sick leave after a motorbike accident has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found that Morrison Data Services Ltd failed to obtain an up-to-date occupational health report before deciding to dismiss.