In a recent case called Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Limited, Mr Truman was a rail industry worker with a chronic condition for which he had been prescribed medical cannabis. He applied for a safety-critical role with SPL Powerlines. This required a mandatory drug and alcohol test under Network Rail’s policy. The policy said that a fail could be recorded as a pass if drugs were taken on medical grounds. The test was administered by Express Medicals. The test was recorded as a fail. Mr Truman was refused the job and was banned from safety-critical rail work for five years. Mr Truman brought various disability discrimination claims which were dismissed by the original Employment Tribunal which heard the case.
On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that:
- With regard to the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal was wrong to take as comparator a non-disabled person who tested positive for drugs. The correct comparator was a non-disabled person who took the test and passed. This issue was remitted.
- Had the policy been applied correctly, the result should have been treated as a pass.
- Network Rail qualified as a ‘qualifications body’ under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) because Sentinel cards authorise safety-critical rail work.
- A qualifications body is not liable where it applies a lawful ‘competence standard’, although reasonable adjustments may still apply to how that standard is assessed.
- Network Rail remained responsible for the testing outcome and resulting ban, even where testing was outsourced.
Express Medical was not liable for inducing discrimination by Network Rail under Section 111 EqA because it had no controlling influence or power over Network Rail as required by Section 111(7).