Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Reasonable adjustmentsCase lawDisability discrimination

Disability: NHS worker’s claim over blood phobia rejected

by Ryan Stringer 7 Jun 2016
by Ryan Stringer 7 Jun 2016

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected a reasonable adjustments claim by an NHS worker with severe phobias of blood and needles. Ryan Stringer explains this recent decision on reasonable adjustments for a disabled person.

Brangwyn v South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust

Phobias and disability

Tribunal considers whether or not a phobia can be a disability

Definition of impairment

Disability discrimination:
line manager briefing

Facts

Mr Brangwyn, who worked in a hospital, had phobias triggered by blood, injections and needles, which was accepted to be a disability.

The condition was so significant that he found it difficult to contemplate going to parts of the hospital where he might be confronted with his phobias.

Over the course of two years, Mr Brangwyn’s job description changed six times following complaints that it did not adequately reflect the results of discussions that he had with managers about managing his phobias.

Employment tribunal claim

Mr Brangwyn claimed that the hospital had failed to make reasonable adjustments in the light of his disability. The employment tribunal dismissed this claim, on the basis of a list of issues agreed between the parties.

The main question was whether or not the hospital imposed a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) that required Mr Brangwyn to go onto the ward.

The three elements of the PCP were:

  • handling patients on the ward;
  • attending meetings on the ward, and
  • collecting patients from the ward.

Employment tribunal decision

The employment tribunal considered this issue only for the period after May 2011, when the hospital became aware of Mr Brangwyn’s disability.

The tribunal took a holistic approach to the evidence, and did not distinguish between the job description and the discussions with management. It concluded that:

  • the claimant was not required to handle patients on the ward;
  • the claimant was required to attend meetings on the ward before May 2011, but when the duty to make reasonable adjustments arose, he had only to attend meetings off the ward; and
  • although there was initially a PCP that he had to go onto the ward to collect patients, this had been removed following a grievance process.

The employment tribunal rejected the submission that it would have been a reasonable adjustment for the job description to have stated that Mr Brangwyn was not required to go onto the ward.

On the basis of what the managers knew at the time from the claimant himself, collecting patients from the waiting areas was not a problem.

According to the tribunal, a reasonable adjustment would have been to ensure that Mr Brangwyn did not have to go into those parts of the ward where he might have seen things that triggered his phobias.

The employment tribunal concluded that, by the time the grievance process had ended, the claimant would only need to support collection and return of patients from the ward, which he had done previously without difficulty.

Appeal

The claimant appealed on the grounds that the employment tribunal had failed to:

  • consider whether or not the job description in itself was a PCP; and
  • give adequate reasons for its finding that the hospital had made reasonable adjustments.

EAT decision

The EAT held that the employment tribunal was correct to consider the discussions with management alongside the job descriptions, as it had not been invited to consider the job description in isolation.

The employment tribunal looked at whether or not the claimant was in fact required to go onto the ward, which was the task set by the parties.

Similarly, the employment tribunal had not been required to explain why, for the period between May 2011 and May 2012, the claimant’s claim had not succeeded.

No separate argument had been addressed to a particular period of time, and therefore the employment tribunal had been correct in taking an overall approach to the claim.

Implications for employers

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

It is not known if the decision would have been the same had the employment tribunal been asked to consider the job description in isolation.

Employers should ensure that job descriptions accurately reflect the job requirements, particularly where these have been specifically agreed with employees following grievance procedures.

Ryan Stringer

Ryan Stringer is an associate at DLA Piper.

previous post
Others should follow NHS focus on race equality
next post
Employment tribunals need radical overhaul, say lawyers

You may also like

Ethnicity and disability pay gaps: Ready to report?...

1 Jul 2025

One in eight senior NHS managers from black...

1 Jul 2025

Welfare cuts would ‘undermine workforce inclusion and business...

27 Jun 2025

HR manager with ‘messy’ work loses discrimination case

25 Jun 2025

WFH employee who falsified timesheets loses unfair dismissal...

16 Jun 2025

School’s bid to appeal Kristie Higgs ruling refused...

11 Jun 2025

Court rejects Liberty’s legal challenge against EHRC consultation

9 Jun 2025

US Supreme Court lowers burden of proof for...

6 Jun 2025

Swearing chef awarded £13,000 for disability discrimination

4 Jun 2025

Liberty to challenge EHRC consultation in High Court

3 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+