{ "id": "cases", "title": "Addiction and employment law", "creator": "Civil Liberties Action", "release": "2026-10-16", "version": "1.1", "canonical_url": "https://civillibertiesaction.org.uk/pages/addiction-employment-cases", "version_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/cases-research.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law [Dataset]. Version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/cases-research.html", "reuse_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/reuse.html", "coverage": "12 selected cases with original judgment sources. Includes procedural rulings, merits decisions and appeals; not a complete case-law search.", "method": "Selected relevant decisions, not an exhaustive legal database or a measure of discrimination prevalence. Findings, allegations and procedural rulings are distinguished. First-instance tribunal decisions do not create binding precedents. A case summary is not advice about an individual situation. Appeal history is reported only to the extent checked; absence of an identified appeal is not confirmation that none exists. Unnecessary personal medical details are omitted.", "method_notes": [ "Jurisdiction and procedural stage are shown on every case. Linked preliminary, merits and remedy judgments are retained where needed to understand a later outcome. Northern Ireland is not covered." ], "update_note": "Fixed release; original source dates and review scope are shown per record. Publication does not refresh every underlying source check.", "records": [ { "id": "case-atherton-2026", "title": "Disability status is separate from proving discriminatory treatment", "summary": "The 2024 preliminary judgment found disability and explained that a possible contribution from cannabis use did not exclude a separate impairment: addiction was not the impairment relied upon. It expressly left causation and employer knowledge unresolved. After the final hearing in 2026 the tribunal dismissed the claims.", "category": "Separate impairment and excluded addiction", "geography": "England and Wales", "period": "2026-05-06", "status": "Final merits judgment following preliminary disability ruling", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "Atherton v 3DGBIRE Ltd, 2409466/2023" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Tribunal (Manchester)" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Separate impairment; cannabis-use argument; disability status versus liability" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "Disability-related unfavourable-treatment, indirect-discrimination, reasonable-adjustment and breach-of-contract claims all dismissed on the merits on 6 May 2026. The earlier finding of disability was not itself a finding of discrimination." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "Both the preliminary ruling and the later final judgment/reasons have been verified. Any subsequent appeal has not been verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Tribunal — first instance" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Substance-use argument about a separate impairment; addiction was not the impairment relied upon." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "Official case page checked 16 October 2026; no later appellate result verified." }, { "label": "First-instance status finding", "value": "Possible harmful cannabis use did not exclude a separate impairment; the tribunal found disability on the evidence. [Source: Preliminary judgment, 31 July 2024, paragraphs 15–20]" }, { "label": "Express limit of determination", "value": "That preliminary finding did not decide whether falling asleep arose from disability or establish employer knowledge. [Source: Paragraph 21]" }, { "label": "Operative disposition", "value": "The later tribunal dismissed all four groups of claims on their merits. [Source: Final judgment, 6 May 2026, operative paragraphs 1–4]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-atherton-v-3dgbire-ltd-2409466-slash-2023", "title": "HMCTS: Atherton v 3DGBIRE Ltd, preliminary and final judgments", "locator": "31 July 2024 preliminary judgment, paragraphs 15–21; 6 May 2026 final judgment, paragraphs 1–4." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf", "title": "Preliminary judgment", "locator": "", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a3a5a2cc6e94f095f3efc96/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_-_2409466_2023_-_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Final judgment", "locator": "", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a79d0cc0a700895e2d7a034/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_2409466-2023.pdf", "title": "Final reasons", "locator": "", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf", "title": "First-instance status finding", "locator": "Preliminary judgment, 31 July 2024, paragraphs 15–20", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf", "title": "Express limit of determination", "locator": "Paragraph 21", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a3a5a2cc6e94f095f3efc96/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_-_2409466_2023_-_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Operative disposition", "locator": "Final judgment, 6 May 2026, operative paragraphs 1–4", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf", "title": "Preliminary disability-status judgment", "locator": "2024-07-31", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a3a5a2cc6e94f095f3efc96/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_-_2409466_2023_-_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Final merits judgment", "locator": "2026-05-06", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a79d0cc0a700895e2d7a034/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_2409466-2023.pdf", "title": "Final reasons", "locator": "Official case page added reasons 13 August 2026; publication date must not substitute for decision date.", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "First-instance decisions. This is not a finding that cannabis addiction qualifies as disability, nor that disability-status success establishes employer liability.", "raw": { "id": "case-atherton-2026", "title": "Disability status is separate from proving discriminatory treatment", "case_reference": "Atherton v 3DGBIRE Ltd, 2409466/2023", "court": "Employment Tribunal (Manchester)", "date": "2026-05-06", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "issue": "Separate impairment; cannabis-use argument; disability status versus liability", "summary": "The 2024 preliminary judgment found disability and explained that a possible contribution from cannabis use did not exclude a separate impairment: addiction was not the impairment relied upon. It expressly left causation and employer knowledge unresolved. After the final hearing in 2026 the tribunal dismissed the claims.", "outcome": "Disability-related unfavourable-treatment, indirect-discrimination, reasonable-adjustment and breach-of-contract claims all dismissed on the merits on 6 May 2026. The earlier finding of disability was not itself a finding of discrimination.", "appeal_status": "Both the preliminary ruling and the later final judgment/reasons have been verified. Any subsequent appeal has not been verified.", "source_url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-atherton-v-3dgbire-ltd-2409466-slash-2023", "source_title": "HMCTS: Atherton v 3DGBIRE Ltd, preliminary and final judgments", "source_locator": "31 July 2024 preliminary judgment, paragraphs 15–21; 6 May 2026 final judgment, paragraphs 1–4.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "First-instance decisions. This is not a finding that cannabis addiction qualifies as disability, nor that disability-status success establishes employer liability.", "procedural_stage": "Final merits judgment following preliminary disability ruling", "tags": [ "Separate impairment", "Disability evidence", "Employer knowledge" ], "additional_sources": [ { "title": "Preliminary judgment", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf" }, { "title": "Final judgment", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a3a5a2cc6e94f095f3efc96/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_-_2409466_2023_-_Judgment.pdf" }, { "title": "Final reasons", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a79d0cc0a700895e2d7a034/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_2409466-2023.pdf" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf", "title": "First-instance status finding", "locator": "Preliminary judgment, 31 July 2024, paragraphs 15–20" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf", "title": "Express limit of determination", "locator": "Paragraph 21" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a3a5a2cc6e94f095f3efc96/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_-_2409466_2023_-_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Operative disposition", "locator": "Final judgment, 6 May 2026, operative paragraphs 1–4" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf", "title": "Preliminary disability-status judgment", "locator": "2024-07-31" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a3a5a2cc6e94f095f3efc96/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_-_2409466_2023_-_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Final merits judgment", "locator": "2026-05-06" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a79d0cc0a700895e2d7a034/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_2409466-2023.pdf", "title": "Final reasons", "locator": "Official case page added reasons 13 August 2026; publication date must not substitute for decision date." } ], "authority_level": "Employment Tribunal — first instance", "decision_type": "Merits judgment following preliminary disability-status decision", "issue_groups": [ "Separate impairment and excluded addiction", "Disability status versus employer liability" ], "addiction_scope": "Substance-use argument about a separate impairment; addiction was not the impairment relied upon.", "propositions": [ { "text": "Possible harmful cannabis use did not exclude a separate impairment; the tribunal found disability on the evidence.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf", "locator": "Preliminary judgment, 31 July 2024, paragraphs 15–20", "kind": "First-instance status finding" }, { "text": "That preliminary finding did not decide whether falling asleep arose from disability or establish employer knowledge.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf", "locator": "Paragraph 21", "kind": "Express limit of determination" }, { "text": "The later tribunal dismissed all four groups of claims on their merits.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a3a5a2cc6e94f095f3efc96/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_-_2409466_2023_-_Judgment.pdf", "locator": "Final judgment, 6 May 2026, operative paragraphs 1–4", "kind": "Operative disposition" } ], "connected_decisions": [ { "stage": "Preliminary disability-status judgment", "date": "2024-07-31", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf" }, { "stage": "Final merits judgment", "date": "2026-05-06", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a3a5a2cc6e94f095f3efc96/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_-_2409466_2023_-_Judgment.pdf" }, { "stage": "Final reasons", "date": null, "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a79d0cc0a700895e2d7a034/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_2409466-2023.pdf", "note": "Official case page added reasons 13 August 2026; publication date must not substitute for decision date." } ], "history_check": "Official case page checked 16 October 2026; no later appellate result verified.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16" }, "highlights": [ "Employment Tribunal (Manchester)", "2026-05-06" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-atherton-2026.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Disability status is separate from proving discriminatory treatment. Record case-atherton-2026, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-atherton-2026.html" }, { "id": "case-truman-2026-eat54", "title": "Prescribed cannabis, rail certification and reasonable adjustments", "summary": "A rail worker prescribed cannabis for a disabling physical condition failed a drug test and was refused a Sentinel card. The EAT upheld the findings concerning Network Rail's qualifications-body status and a competence standard. It found no error in the chosen comparator, but required clearer findings on the practices applied and on whether failure to consider relevant medical information disadvantaged the claimant more than the comparator.", "category": "Prescribed medication", "geography": "England and Wales", "period": "2026-05-01", "status": "Appeal; partial remittal", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd and others [2026] EAT 54; EA-2024-000852-NK" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Appeal Tribunal" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Prescribed medication; reasonable adjustments; safety-critical work" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "Appeal partly allowed: specified reasonable-adjustment issues against Network Rail remitted to the Employment Tribunal. Appeal against Powerlines dismissed. Express Medicals succeeded on its separate cross-appeal about section 111 liability." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "This is an appeal judgment. The ordered remittal is verified; no subsequent remittal result or further appeal has been verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Appeal Tribunal — appellate" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Prescribed treatment for a separate physical disability; no finding of addiction." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "Targeted GOV.UK web searches for the case and remittal did not verify a subsequent remittal or further appeal result; this is not proof that none exists." }, { "label": "Appellate reasoning", "value": "The EAT found no error in using a non-disabled worker who failed the test as comparator. The missing reasoning concerned comparative disadvantage from not considering relevant medical information. [Source: Paragraphs 111–112]" }, { "label": "Remittal scope", "value": "Unclear findings about whether the pleaded practices were applied required remittal of Issues 24 and 25; this did not finally establish a breach of the adjustment duty. [Source: Paragraphs 113–115 and 157]" }, { "label": "Operative disposition", "value": "The appeal against Powerlines failed; Express Medicals succeeded on its separate cross-appeal. [Source: Paragraphs 156–160]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf", "title": "HMCTS: Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd and others [2026] EAT 54", "locator": "Summary, PDF pp. 2–3; paragraphs 156–160 (PDF p. 56)." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf", "title": "Appellate reasoning", "locator": "Paragraphs 111–112", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf", "title": "Remittal scope", "locator": "Paragraphs 113–115 and 157", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf", "title": "Operative disposition", "locator": "Paragraphs 156–160", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-truman-v-1-spl-powerlines-uk-ltd-2-network-rail-infrastructure-ltd-3-express-medicals-ltd-2026-eat-54", "title": "EAT appeal judgment", "locator": "2026-05-01", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "This concerns prescribed treatment for a separate physical disability, not a finding that addiction itself is protected. The EAT did not finally determine the remitted reasonable-adjustment claim.", "raw": { "id": "case-truman-2026-eat54", "title": "Prescribed cannabis, rail certification and reasonable adjustments", "case_reference": "Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd and others [2026] EAT 54; EA-2024-000852-NK", "court": "Employment Appeal Tribunal", "date": "2026-05-01", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "issue": "Prescribed medication; reasonable adjustments; safety-critical work", "summary": "A rail worker prescribed cannabis for a disabling physical condition failed a drug test and was refused a Sentinel card. The EAT upheld the findings concerning Network Rail's qualifications-body status and a competence standard. It found no error in the chosen comparator, but required clearer findings on the practices applied and on whether failure to consider relevant medical information disadvantaged the claimant more than the comparator.", "outcome": "Appeal partly allowed: specified reasonable-adjustment issues against Network Rail remitted to the Employment Tribunal. Appeal against Powerlines dismissed. Express Medicals succeeded on its separate cross-appeal about section 111 liability.", "appeal_status": "This is an appeal judgment. The ordered remittal is verified; no subsequent remittal result or further appeal has been verified.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf", "source_title": "HMCTS: Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd and others [2026] EAT 54", "source_locator": "Summary, PDF pp. 2–3; paragraphs 156–160 (PDF p. 56).", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "This concerns prescribed treatment for a separate physical disability, not a finding that addiction itself is protected. The EAT did not finally determine the remitted reasonable-adjustment claim.", "procedural_stage": "Appeal; partial remittal", "tags": [ "Prescribed medication", "Reasonable adjustments", "Safety-critical work" ], "authority_level": "Employment Appeal Tribunal — appellate", "decision_type": "Appeal; partly allowed with remittal", "issue_groups": [ "Prescribed medication", "Safety-critical testing", "Reasonable adjustments" ], "addiction_scope": "Prescribed treatment for a separate physical disability; no finding of addiction.", "propositions": [ { "text": "The EAT found no error in using a non-disabled worker who failed the test as comparator. The missing reasoning concerned comparative disadvantage from not considering relevant medical information.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 111–112", "kind": "Appellate reasoning" }, { "text": "Unclear findings about whether the pleaded practices were applied required remittal of Issues 24 and 25; this did not finally establish a breach of the adjustment duty.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 113–115 and 157", "kind": "Remittal scope" }, { "text": "The appeal against Powerlines failed; Express Medicals succeeded on its separate cross-appeal.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 156–160", "kind": "Operative disposition" } ], "connected_decisions": [ { "stage": "EAT appeal judgment", "date": "2026-05-01", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-truman-v-1-spl-powerlines-uk-ltd-2-network-rail-infrastructure-ltd-3-express-medicals-ltd-2026-eat-54" } ], "history_check": "Targeted GOV.UK web searches for the case and remittal did not verify a subsequent remittal or further appeal result; this is not proof that none exists.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16", "additional_sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf", "title": "Appellate reasoning", "locator": "Paragraphs 111–112" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf", "title": "Remittal scope", "locator": "Paragraphs 113–115 and 157" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf", "title": "Operative disposition", "locator": "Paragraphs 156–160" }, { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-truman-v-1-spl-powerlines-uk-ltd-2-network-rail-infrastructure-ltd-3-express-medicals-ltd-2026-eat-54", "title": "EAT appeal judgment", "locator": "2026-05-01" } ] }, "highlights": [ "Employment Appeal Tribunal", "2026-05-01" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-truman-2026-eat54.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Prescribed cannabis, rail certification and reasonable adjustments. Record case-truman-2026-eat54, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-truman-2026-eat54.html" }, { "id": "case-smith-2026", "title": "Drug-use allegations and a separate established disability", "summary": "The tribunal distinguished a contention that drug use exacerbated existing disabilities from a contention that the impairment relied upon was addiction. It found that the established disabilities predated drug use and that the employer knew or ought reasonably to have known of them. Some discrimination and harassment complaints succeeded and others failed.", "category": "Separate impairment and excluded addiction", "geography": "England and Wales", "period": "2026-04-20", "status": "Final merits judgment; remedy subsequently determined", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "Smith v Addingtons Associates Ltd, 3314144/2023" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Tribunal (Cambridge)" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Coexisting impairment; substance-use arguments; disability discrimination" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "Two section 15 complaints and three disability-related harassment complaints succeeded; other discrimination complaints were dismissed. Pay and annual-leave complaints also succeeded. The remedy judgment of 20 July 2026 ordered a total award of £27,060.77." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "Liability, written reasons and remedy verified. No appellate outcome has been verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Tribunal — first instance" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Drug-use allegations concerning established disabilities; no finding that the claimant had addiction." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "Official case page checked 16 October 2026; appellate outcome not verified." }, { "label": "First-instance application", "value": "The tribunal distinguished allegations that drug use exacerbated disabilities from an allegation that addiction was the impairment relied upon; the established disabilities predated the drug use. [Source: Paragraph 135]" }, { "label": "First-instance factual finding", "value": "Actual or constructive knowledge of the separate disabilities was found on the evidence. [Source: Paragraphs 133–135]" }, { "label": "Operative remedy", "value": "The later remedy order totals £27,060.77; this is an award, not evidence of payment. [Source: Remedy judgment, 20 July 2026, paragraphs 1–2]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-s-smith-v-addingtons-associates-ltd-3314144-slash-2023", "title": "HMCTS: Smith v Addingtons Associates Ltd, judgments, reasons and remedy", "locator": "Liability judgment, paragraphs 1–7; final reasons, paragraph 135; remedy judgment, paragraphs 1–2." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a54f891c3d64d94cacab8aa/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Reasons_2.pdf", "title": "Final reasons", "locator": "", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a623748abcde513b38b6e00/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Remedy_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Remedy judgment", "locator": "", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a54f891c3d64d94cacab8aa/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Reasons_2.pdf", "title": "First-instance application", "locator": "Paragraph 135", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a54f891c3d64d94cacab8aa/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Reasons_2.pdf", "title": "First-instance factual finding", "locator": "Paragraphs 133–135", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a623748abcde513b38b6e00/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Remedy_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Operative remedy", "locator": "Remedy judgment, 20 July 2026, paragraphs 1–2", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6992fc487da91680ad7f445b/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_FMH_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Disability-status judgment", "locator": "Use the signed approval date, 26 January 2026; the PDF internal document title gives a different date.", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a2c09f5e50716856ed4afef/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited-3314144-2023-Judgment.pdf", "title": "Liability judgment", "locator": "2026-04-20", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a623748abcde513b38b6e00/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Remedy_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Remedy judgment", "locator": "2026-07-20", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "First-instance mixed outcome. No finding that addiction was itself the protected impairment. This record does not classify the claimant as having an addiction.", "raw": { "id": "case-smith-2026", "title": "Drug-use allegations and a separate established disability", "case_reference": "Smith v Addingtons Associates Ltd, 3314144/2023", "court": "Employment Tribunal (Cambridge)", "date": "2026-04-20", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "issue": "Coexisting impairment; substance-use arguments; disability discrimination", "summary": "The tribunal distinguished a contention that drug use exacerbated existing disabilities from a contention that the impairment relied upon was addiction. It found that the established disabilities predated drug use and that the employer knew or ought reasonably to have known of them. Some discrimination and harassment complaints succeeded and others failed.", "outcome": "Two section 15 complaints and three disability-related harassment complaints succeeded; other discrimination complaints were dismissed. Pay and annual-leave complaints also succeeded. The remedy judgment of 20 July 2026 ordered a total award of £27,060.77.", "appeal_status": "Liability, written reasons and remedy verified. No appellate outcome has been verified.", "source_url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-s-smith-v-addingtons-associates-ltd-3314144-slash-2023", "source_title": "HMCTS: Smith v Addingtons Associates Ltd, judgments, reasons and remedy", "source_locator": "Liability judgment, paragraphs 1–7; final reasons, paragraph 135; remedy judgment, paragraphs 1–2.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "First-instance mixed outcome. No finding that addiction was itself the protected impairment. This record does not classify the claimant as having an addiction.", "procedural_stage": "Final merits judgment; remedy subsequently determined", "tags": [ "Coexisting impairment", "Employer knowledge", "Harassment" ], "additional_sources": [ { "title": "Final reasons", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a54f891c3d64d94cacab8aa/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Reasons_2.pdf" }, { "title": "Remedy judgment", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a623748abcde513b38b6e00/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Remedy_Judgment.pdf" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a54f891c3d64d94cacab8aa/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Reasons_2.pdf", "title": "First-instance application", "locator": "Paragraph 135" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a54f891c3d64d94cacab8aa/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Reasons_2.pdf", "title": "First-instance factual finding", "locator": "Paragraphs 133–135" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a623748abcde513b38b6e00/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Remedy_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Operative remedy", "locator": "Remedy judgment, 20 July 2026, paragraphs 1–2" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6992fc487da91680ad7f445b/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_FMH_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Disability-status judgment", "locator": "Use the signed approval date, 26 January 2026; the PDF internal document title gives a different date." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a2c09f5e50716856ed4afef/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited-3314144-2023-Judgment.pdf", "title": "Liability judgment", "locator": "2026-04-20" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a623748abcde513b38b6e00/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Remedy_Judgment.pdf", "title": "Remedy judgment", "locator": "2026-07-20" } ], "authority_level": "Employment Tribunal — first instance", "decision_type": "Liability and remedy following disability-status determination", "issue_groups": [ "Separate impairment and excluded addiction", "Employer knowledge", "Harassment" ], "addiction_scope": "Drug-use allegations concerning established disabilities; no finding that the claimant had addiction.", "propositions": [ { "text": "The tribunal distinguished allegations that drug use exacerbated disabilities from an allegation that addiction was the impairment relied upon; the established disabilities predated the drug use.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a54f891c3d64d94cacab8aa/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Reasons_2.pdf", "locator": "Paragraph 135", "kind": "First-instance application" }, { "text": "Actual or constructive knowledge of the separate disabilities was found on the evidence.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a54f891c3d64d94cacab8aa/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Reasons_2.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 133–135", "kind": "First-instance factual finding" }, { "text": "The later remedy order totals £27,060.77; this is an award, not evidence of payment.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a623748abcde513b38b6e00/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Remedy_Judgment.pdf", "locator": "Remedy judgment, 20 July 2026, paragraphs 1–2", "kind": "Operative remedy" } ], "connected_decisions": [ { "stage": "Disability-status judgment", "date": "2026-01-26", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6992fc487da91680ad7f445b/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_FMH_Judgment.pdf", "note": "Use the signed approval date, 26 January 2026; the PDF internal document title gives a different date." }, { "stage": "Liability judgment", "date": "2026-04-20", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a2c09f5e50716856ed4afef/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited-3314144-2023-Judgment.pdf" }, { "stage": "Remedy judgment", "date": "2026-07-20", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a623748abcde513b38b6e00/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Remedy_Judgment.pdf" } ], "history_check": "Official case page checked 16 October 2026; appellate outcome not verified.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16" }, "highlights": [ "Employment Tribunal (Cambridge)", "2026-04-20" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-smith-2026.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Drug-use allegations and a separate established disability. Record case-smith-2026, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-smith-2026.html" }, { "id": "case-davidson-2025-eat151", "title": "Alcohol testing, fair procedure and compensation", "summary": "A coach driver was dismissed after failing an alcohol test. The Employment Tribunal found dismissal unfair only because the internal appeal was unfair, rejected wrongful dismissal and reduced compensation. The EAT rejected challenges to the tribunal’s reasoning on those matters but identified an error in its calculation of future loss.", "category": "Substance testing and misconduct", "geography": "England and Wales", "period": "2025-10-21", "status": "Appeal; remedy remittal", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151; EA-2024-000081-OO" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Appeal Tribunal" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Alcohol-related misconduct; unfair dismissal; remedy" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "Calculation of the underlying compensatory loss remitted for fresh consideration. Challenges concerning the tribunal’s reasoning on Polkey, contributory conduct and wrongful dismissal failed." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "This is an appeal judgment. Remittal on compensation verified; subsequent remedy determination and further appeal not verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Appeal Tribunal — appellate" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Alcohol-testing misconduct; no addiction or disability-discrimination finding." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "Targeted GOV.UK web search did not verify a later remedy judgment or further appeal. No inference of absence." }, { "label": "Appellate reasoning", "value": "Compensatory loss required a reasoned assessment of the evidence, rather than an unsupported age-65 cut-off. [Source: Paragraphs 53–65]" }, { "label": "Operative disposition", "value": "Past and future loss were remitted. The existing percentage adjustments, basic award and rejection of wrongful dismissal remained undisturbed. [Source: Paragraphs 66–68]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f755ce0cef4b4e32f12d9a/Ms_J_Davidson_v_National_Express_Ltd__2025__EAT_151.pdf", "title": "HMCTS: Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151", "locator": "Summary (PDF p. 2); paragraphs 1–4 and final conclusion." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f755ce0cef4b4e32f12d9a/Ms_J_Davidson_v_National_Express_Ltd__2025__EAT_151.pdf", "title": "Appellate reasoning", "locator": "Paragraphs 53–65", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f755ce0cef4b4e32f12d9a/Ms_J_Davidson_v_National_Express_Ltd__2025__EAT_151.pdf", "title": "Operative disposition", "locator": "Paragraphs 66–68", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "An alcohol-testing misconduct case, not a finding of addiction or a disability-discrimination ruling. A finding of procedural unfairness does not mean that the underlying conduct was acceptable.", "raw": { "id": "case-davidson-2025-eat151", "title": "Alcohol testing, fair procedure and compensation", "case_reference": "Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151; EA-2024-000081-OO", "court": "Employment Appeal Tribunal", "date": "2025-10-21", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "issue": "Alcohol-related misconduct; unfair dismissal; remedy", "summary": "A coach driver was dismissed after failing an alcohol test. The Employment Tribunal found dismissal unfair only because the internal appeal was unfair, rejected wrongful dismissal and reduced compensation. The EAT rejected challenges to the tribunal’s reasoning on those matters but identified an error in its calculation of future loss.", "outcome": "Calculation of the underlying compensatory loss remitted for fresh consideration. Challenges concerning the tribunal’s reasoning on Polkey, contributory conduct and wrongful dismissal failed.", "appeal_status": "This is an appeal judgment. Remittal on compensation verified; subsequent remedy determination and further appeal not verified.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f755ce0cef4b4e32f12d9a/Ms_J_Davidson_v_National_Express_Ltd__2025__EAT_151.pdf", "source_title": "HMCTS: Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151", "source_locator": "Summary (PDF p. 2); paragraphs 1–4 and final conclusion.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "An alcohol-testing misconduct case, not a finding of addiction or a disability-discrimination ruling. A finding of procedural unfairness does not mean that the underlying conduct was acceptable.", "procedural_stage": "Appeal; remedy remittal", "tags": [ "Misconduct", "Unfair dismissal", "Remedy" ], "authority_level": "Employment Appeal Tribunal — appellate", "decision_type": "Appeal about dismissal findings and compensation; remedy remittal", "issue_groups": [ "Substance testing and misconduct", "Unfair dismissal", "Compensation" ], "addiction_scope": "Alcohol-testing misconduct; no addiction or disability-discrimination finding.", "propositions": [ { "text": "Compensatory loss required a reasoned assessment of the evidence, rather than an unsupported age-65 cut-off.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f755ce0cef4b4e32f12d9a/Ms_J_Davidson_v_National_Express_Ltd__2025__EAT_151.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 53–65", "kind": "Appellate reasoning" }, { "text": "Past and future loss were remitted. The existing percentage adjustments, basic award and rejection of wrongful dismissal remained undisturbed.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f755ce0cef4b4e32f12d9a/Ms_J_Davidson_v_National_Express_Ltd__2025__EAT_151.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 66–68", "kind": "Operative disposition" } ], "connected_decisions": [], "history_check": "Targeted GOV.UK web search did not verify a later remedy judgment or further appeal. No inference of absence.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16", "additional_sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f755ce0cef4b4e32f12d9a/Ms_J_Davidson_v_National_Express_Ltd__2025__EAT_151.pdf", "title": "Appellate reasoning", "locator": "Paragraphs 53–65" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f755ce0cef4b4e32f12d9a/Ms_J_Davidson_v_National_Express_Ltd__2025__EAT_151.pdf", "title": "Operative disposition", "locator": "Paragraphs 66–68" } ] }, "highlights": [ "Employment Appeal Tribunal", "2025-10-21" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-davidson-2025-eat151.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Alcohol testing, fair procedure and compensation. Record case-davidson-2025-eat151, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-davidson-2025-eat151.html" }, { "id": "case-anderson-2024", "title": "Cannabis use, prescribed treatment and disability evidence", "summary": "The tribunal held that the claimant had not proved the relied-upon impairment and its required effects at the relevant time. It expressly declined to infer addiction from habitual cannabis use alone. It distinguished medically prescribed cannabis, whose treatment effects could in principle be discounted, from non-prescribed use, while finding the necessary evidence insufficient.", "category": "Prescribed medication", "geography": "Scotland", "period": "2024-05-16", "status": "Preliminary hearing; disability-status determination", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "Anderson v P J Carey (Contractors) Ltd and Careys plc, 8000461/2023" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Edinburgh)" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Disability evidence; prescribed cannabis; addiction not inferred from repeated use" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "Discrimination complaints dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the statutory disability requirements had not been established." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "Preliminary judgment verified; any later appeal or reconsideration has not been verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Tribunal — first instance" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Habitual cannabis use was discussed, but addiction was expressly not inferred." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "Targeted case-name/number search did not verify an appeal or reconsideration. Avoid the broader claim that childhood ADHD diagnoses expire." }, { "label": "Express factual limit", "value": "Habitual daily cannabis use alone was insufficient evidence for a finding of addiction. [Source: Paragraph 87]" }, { "label": "First-instance evidence assessment", "value": "Medically prescribed cannabis could fall within the treatment-disregard provisions, but evidence of its effects and of the relied-on impairment was insufficient on this record. [Source: Paragraphs 89–93]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668271e47d26b2be17a4b4bb/S_Anderson_v_P.J._CAREY__CONTRACTORS__LIMITED-8000461-2023-Judgment.pdf", "title": "HMCTS: Anderson v P J Carey (Contractors) Ltd, preliminary judgment", "locator": "Operative judgment; paragraphs 81–93, particularly 87–90; signature date 16 May 2024." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668271e47d26b2be17a4b4bb/S_Anderson_v_P.J._CAREY__CONTRACTORS__LIMITED-8000461-2023-Judgment.pdf", "title": "Express factual limit", "locator": "Paragraph 87", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668271e47d26b2be17a4b4bb/S_Anderson_v_P.J._CAREY__CONTRACTORS__LIMITED-8000461-2023-Judgment.pdf", "title": "First-instance evidence assessment", "locator": "Paragraphs 89–93", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "First-instance evidential ruling on this record. It is not a general finding that a childhood diagnosis expires, that prescribed cannabis prevents disability status, or that repeated cannabis use proves addiction.", "raw": { "id": "case-anderson-2024", "title": "Cannabis use, prescribed treatment and disability evidence", "case_reference": "Anderson v P J Carey (Contractors) Ltd and Careys plc, 8000461/2023", "court": "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Edinburgh)", "date": "2024-05-16", "jurisdiction": "Scotland", "issue": "Disability evidence; prescribed cannabis; addiction not inferred from repeated use", "summary": "The tribunal held that the claimant had not proved the relied-upon impairment and its required effects at the relevant time. It expressly declined to infer addiction from habitual cannabis use alone. It distinguished medically prescribed cannabis, whose treatment effects could in principle be discounted, from non-prescribed use, while finding the necessary evidence insufficient.", "outcome": "Discrimination complaints dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the statutory disability requirements had not been established.", "appeal_status": "Preliminary judgment verified; any later appeal or reconsideration has not been verified.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668271e47d26b2be17a4b4bb/S_Anderson_v_P.J._CAREY__CONTRACTORS__LIMITED-8000461-2023-Judgment.pdf", "source_title": "HMCTS: Anderson v P J Carey (Contractors) Ltd, preliminary judgment", "source_locator": "Operative judgment; paragraphs 81–93, particularly 87–90; signature date 16 May 2024.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "First-instance evidential ruling on this record. It is not a general finding that a childhood diagnosis expires, that prescribed cannabis prevents disability status, or that repeated cannabis use proves addiction.", "procedural_stage": "Preliminary hearing; disability-status determination", "tags": [ "Prescribed medication", "Disability evidence", "Separate impairment" ], "authority_level": "Employment Tribunal — first instance", "decision_type": "Preliminary disability-status determination; claims dismissed", "issue_groups": [ "Prescribed medication", "Disability evidence" ], "addiction_scope": "Habitual cannabis use was discussed, but addiction was expressly not inferred.", "propositions": [ { "text": "Habitual daily cannabis use alone was insufficient evidence for a finding of addiction.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668271e47d26b2be17a4b4bb/S_Anderson_v_P.J._CAREY__CONTRACTORS__LIMITED-8000461-2023-Judgment.pdf", "locator": "Paragraph 87", "kind": "Express factual limit" }, { "text": "Medically prescribed cannabis could fall within the treatment-disregard provisions, but evidence of its effects and of the relied-on impairment was insufficient on this record.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668271e47d26b2be17a4b4bb/S_Anderson_v_P.J._CAREY__CONTRACTORS__LIMITED-8000461-2023-Judgment.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 89–93", "kind": "First-instance evidence assessment" } ], "connected_decisions": [], "history_check": "Targeted case-name/number search did not verify an appeal or reconsideration. Avoid the broader claim that childhood ADHD diagnoses expire.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16", "additional_sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668271e47d26b2be17a4b4bb/S_Anderson_v_P.J._CAREY__CONTRACTORS__LIMITED-8000461-2023-Judgment.pdf", "title": "Express factual limit", "locator": "Paragraph 87" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668271e47d26b2be17a4b4bb/S_Anderson_v_P.J._CAREY__CONTRACTORS__LIMITED-8000461-2023-Judgment.pdf", "title": "First-instance evidence assessment", "locator": "Paragraphs 89–93" } ] }, "highlights": [ "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Edinburgh)", "2024-05-16" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-anderson-2024.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Cannabis use, prescribed treatment and disability evidence. Record case-anderson-2024, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-anderson-2024.html" }, { "id": "case-were-2022", "title": "Conviction disclosure and the excluded-condition rules", "summary": "At a preliminary hearing the tribunal considered withdrawal of registration following non-disclosure of convictions. It assumed disability for that hearing rather than deciding disability status. It concluded that the disability-discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, addressing the excluded-condition rules and the reason for withdrawal.", "category": "Excluded conditions and causation", "geography": "England and Wales", "period": "2022-04-07", "status": "Preliminary hearing; strike-out", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "Were v NHS Professionals Ltd, 2308268/2020" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Tribunal (London South)" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Addiction; coexisting mental-health impairment; causation; strike-out" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "Disability-discrimination claim struck out. The unfair-dismissal claim was struck out for insufficient service; the contract claim was also struck out. Written reasons are dated 3 May 2022." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "No later appeal or reconsideration outcome has been verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Tribunal — first instance" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Addiction and a separate mental-health impairment discussed; disability status assumed only for the application." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "No verified later outcome; not a general rule that a conviction defeats a discrimination claim." }, { "label": "Procedural assumption", "value": "The tribunal assumed disability for the strike-out hearing because it could not determine status without medical records. [Source: Paragraphs 25–26]" }, { "label": "First-instance strike-out reasoning", "value": "It held on that application that non-disclosure and the convictions, rather than the mental-health conditions, caused withdrawal of registration, and struck the discrimination claim out. [Source: Paragraphs 27–31]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a1c66dd3bf7f0372734790/Ms_N_Were_v_NHS_Professionsals_Ltd_2308268-2020.pdf", "title": "HMCTS: Were v NHS Professionals Ltd, judgment at preliminary hearing", "locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 22–32 (PDF pp. 7–9)." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a1c66dd3bf7f0372734790/Ms_N_Were_v_NHS_Professionsals_Ltd_2308268-2020.pdf", "title": "Procedural assumption", "locator": "Paragraphs 25–26", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a1c66dd3bf7f0372734790/Ms_N_Were_v_NHS_Professionsals_Ltd_2308268-2020.pdf", "title": "First-instance strike-out reasoning", "locator": "Paragraphs 27–31", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "First-instance strike-out decision, not a merits trial or binding precedent. The tribunal expressly did not determine disability status. It must not be generalised into a rule that any past conviction defeats a discrimination claim.", "raw": { "id": "case-were-2022", "title": "Conviction disclosure and the excluded-condition rules", "case_reference": "Were v NHS Professionals Ltd, 2308268/2020", "court": "Employment Tribunal (London South)", "date": "2022-04-07", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "issue": "Addiction; coexisting mental-health impairment; causation; strike-out", "summary": "At a preliminary hearing the tribunal considered withdrawal of registration following non-disclosure of convictions. It assumed disability for that hearing rather than deciding disability status. It concluded that the disability-discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, addressing the excluded-condition rules and the reason for withdrawal.", "outcome": "Disability-discrimination claim struck out. The unfair-dismissal claim was struck out for insufficient service; the contract claim was also struck out. Written reasons are dated 3 May 2022.", "appeal_status": "No later appeal or reconsideration outcome has been verified.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a1c66dd3bf7f0372734790/Ms_N_Were_v_NHS_Professionsals_Ltd_2308268-2020.pdf", "source_title": "HMCTS: Were v NHS Professionals Ltd, judgment at preliminary hearing", "source_locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 22–32 (PDF pp. 7–9).", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "First-instance strike-out decision, not a merits trial or binding precedent. The tribunal expressly did not determine disability status. It must not be generalised into a rule that any past conviction defeats a discrimination claim.", "procedural_stage": "Preliminary hearing; strike-out", "tags": [ "Excluded addiction", "Coexisting impairment", "Strike-out" ], "authority_level": "Employment Tribunal — first instance", "decision_type": "Preliminary strike-out; no merits trial", "issue_groups": [ "Excluded conditions and causation", "Conviction disclosure", "Strike-out" ], "addiction_scope": "Addiction and a separate mental-health impairment discussed; disability status assumed only for the application.", "propositions": [ { "text": "The tribunal assumed disability for the strike-out hearing because it could not determine status without medical records.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a1c66dd3bf7f0372734790/Ms_N_Were_v_NHS_Professionsals_Ltd_2308268-2020.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 25–26", "kind": "Procedural assumption" }, { "text": "It held on that application that non-disclosure and the convictions, rather than the mental-health conditions, caused withdrawal of registration, and struck the discrimination claim out.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a1c66dd3bf7f0372734790/Ms_N_Were_v_NHS_Professionsals_Ltd_2308268-2020.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 27–31", "kind": "First-instance strike-out reasoning" } ], "connected_decisions": [], "history_check": "No verified later outcome; not a general rule that a conviction defeats a discrimination claim.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16", "additional_sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a1c66dd3bf7f0372734790/Ms_N_Were_v_NHS_Professionsals_Ltd_2308268-2020.pdf", "title": "Procedural assumption", "locator": "Paragraphs 25–26" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a1c66dd3bf7f0372734790/Ms_N_Were_v_NHS_Professionsals_Ltd_2308268-2020.pdf", "title": "First-instance strike-out reasoning", "locator": "Paragraphs 27–31" } ] }, "highlights": [ "Employment Tribunal (London South)", "2022-04-07" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-were-2022.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Conviction disclosure and the excluded-condition rules. Record case-were-2022, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-were-2022.html" }, { "id": "case-freeman-2021", "title": "Treatment and the practical ability to bring a claim in time", "summary": "The tribunal considered whether claims could proceed despite a delay. On the evidence of the claimant’s condition, treatment and help with submitting the claim, it held that timely presentation of the unfair-dismissal and wage claims had not been reasonably practicable and that the eight-day delay was reasonable. It treated the disability-discrimination claims as in time.", "category": "Treatment and access to justice", "geography": "England and Wales", "period": "2021-05-26", "status": "Preliminary hearing; time limits", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "A Freeman v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd, 2307164/2020" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Tribunal (London South)" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Access to justice; addiction treatment; time limits" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "Tribunal accepted jurisdiction to hear the claims. This decision did not decide whether the employer had discriminated or dismissed unfairly." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "Later merits decision and any appeal have not been verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Tribunal — first instance" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Treatment and ability to bring a claim; not a decision that addiction is a protected disability." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "Targeted official-domain case-number search did not verify a later merits judgment. Existing public caption A Freeman is preserved despite the PDF filename using R." }, { "label": "Procedural determination", "value": "On the evidence, timely presentation of the unfair-dismissal and wage claims was not reasonably practicable; the further eight-day period was reasonable. [Source: Paragraphs 77–95; operative judgment paragraph 1]" }, { "label": "Limit of decision", "value": "The discrimination claims were treated as within time; no finding of discrimination or unfair dismissal was made. [Source: Operative judgment paragraph 2]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1ca3ed3bf7f4bd4662bdc/Ms_R_Freeman_v_Sainsbury_s_Supermarkets_Ltd_2307164-2020.pdf", "title": "HMCTS: A Freeman v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd, judgment with reasons", "locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 6–10, 35–45 and 77–95." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1ca3ed3bf7f4bd4662bdc/Ms_R_Freeman_v_Sainsbury_s_Supermarkets_Ltd_2307164-2020.pdf", "title": "Procedural determination", "locator": "Paragraphs 77–95; operative judgment paragraph 1", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1ca3ed3bf7f4bd4662bdc/Ms_R_Freeman_v_Sainsbury_s_Supermarkets_Ltd_2307164-2020.pdf", "title": "Limit of decision", "locator": "Operative judgment paragraph 2", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "First-instance procedural ruling on this evidence. It is not an automatic extension of tribunal deadlines for anyone entering treatment, and is not a finding that addiction qualifies as a disability.", "raw": { "id": "case-freeman-2021", "title": "Treatment and the practical ability to bring a claim in time", "case_reference": "A Freeman v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd, 2307164/2020", "court": "Employment Tribunal (London South)", "date": "2021-05-26", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "issue": "Access to justice; addiction treatment; time limits", "summary": "The tribunal considered whether claims could proceed despite a delay. On the evidence of the claimant’s condition, treatment and help with submitting the claim, it held that timely presentation of the unfair-dismissal and wage claims had not been reasonably practicable and that the eight-day delay was reasonable. It treated the disability-discrimination claims as in time.", "outcome": "Tribunal accepted jurisdiction to hear the claims. This decision did not decide whether the employer had discriminated or dismissed unfairly.", "appeal_status": "Later merits decision and any appeal have not been verified.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1ca3ed3bf7f4bd4662bdc/Ms_R_Freeman_v_Sainsbury_s_Supermarkets_Ltd_2307164-2020.pdf", "source_title": "HMCTS: A Freeman v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd, judgment with reasons", "source_locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 6–10, 35–45 and 77–95.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "First-instance procedural ruling on this evidence. It is not an automatic extension of tribunal deadlines for anyone entering treatment, and is not a finding that addiction qualifies as a disability.", "procedural_stage": "Preliminary hearing; time limits", "tags": [ "Access to justice", "Treatment", "Time limits" ], "authority_level": "Employment Tribunal — first instance", "decision_type": "Preliminary time-limit determination; merits unresolved in this record", "issue_groups": [ "Treatment and access to justice", "Time limits" ], "addiction_scope": "Treatment and ability to bring a claim; not a decision that addiction is a protected disability.", "propositions": [ { "text": "On the evidence, timely presentation of the unfair-dismissal and wage claims was not reasonably practicable; the further eight-day period was reasonable.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1ca3ed3bf7f4bd4662bdc/Ms_R_Freeman_v_Sainsbury_s_Supermarkets_Ltd_2307164-2020.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 77–95; operative judgment paragraph 1", "kind": "Procedural determination" }, { "text": "The discrimination claims were treated as within time; no finding of discrimination or unfair dismissal was made.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1ca3ed3bf7f4bd4662bdc/Ms_R_Freeman_v_Sainsbury_s_Supermarkets_Ltd_2307164-2020.pdf", "locator": "Operative judgment paragraph 2", "kind": "Limit of decision" } ], "connected_decisions": [], "history_check": "Targeted official-domain case-number search did not verify a later merits judgment. Existing public caption A Freeman is preserved despite the PDF filename using R.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16", "additional_sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1ca3ed3bf7f4bd4662bdc/Ms_R_Freeman_v_Sainsbury_s_Supermarkets_Ltd_2307164-2020.pdf", "title": "Procedural determination", "locator": "Paragraphs 77–95; operative judgment paragraph 1" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1ca3ed3bf7f4bd4662bdc/Ms_R_Freeman_v_Sainsbury_s_Supermarkets_Ltd_2307164-2020.pdf", "title": "Limit of decision", "locator": "Operative judgment paragraph 2" } ] }, "highlights": [ "Employment Tribunal (London South)", "2021-05-26" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-freeman-2021.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Treatment and the practical ability to bring a claim in time. Record case-freeman-2021, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-freeman-2021.html" }, { "id": "case-wyrwal-2021", "title": "Alcohol-related behaviour and an underlying depression argument", "summary": "The first claimant argued that alcohol addiction arose from depression. In the reconsidered strike-out judgment, the tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the effective reason for dismissal would be found to be the underlying depression rather than the alcohol-related behaviour identified by the employer.", "category": "Excluded conditions and causation", "geography": "England and Wales", "period": "2021-03-05", "status": "Reconsidered strike-out judgment", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "Wyrwal and Stempien-Wyrwal v Chapel Cottage Plants Ltd, 3328257/2019 and related claims" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Tribunal (Bury St Edmunds)" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Excluded addiction; coexisting depression; reason for dismissal" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "The first claimant’s disability-discrimination and unfair-dismissal claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment also disposed of related claims." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "This judgment varies an earlier judgment; further appeal history has not been verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Tribunal — first instance" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Alcohol addiction argued to arise from depression; the effective reason for dismissal was central." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "The reviewed judgment varies an earlier order. Further appellate history remains unverified." }, { "label": "First-instance strike-out reasoning", "value": "The tribunal found no reasonable prospect that depression, rather than the alcohol-related behaviour identified by the employer, would be established as the effective reason for dismissal. [Source: Paragraphs 17–21]" }, { "label": "Operative/procedural reasoning", "value": "The unfair-dismissal claim was also struck out under the no-reasonable-prospect test. [Source: Paragraph 22]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60508e40d3bf7f1d10e505b5/Mr_J_Wyrwal___Mrs_A_Stempien-Wyrwal_v_Chapel_Cottage_Plants_Ltd_3328257-19_RECONSIDERATION_JUDGMENT_.pdf", "title": "HMCTS: Wyrwal and Stempien-Wyrwal v Chapel Cottage Plants Ltd, reconsideration judgment", "locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 15–22 (PDF pp. 3–5); signature date 5 March 2021." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60508e40d3bf7f1d10e505b5/Mr_J_Wyrwal___Mrs_A_Stempien-Wyrwal_v_Chapel_Cottage_Plants_Ltd_3328257-19_RECONSIDERATION_JUDGMENT_.pdf", "title": "First-instance strike-out reasoning", "locator": "Paragraphs 17–21", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60508e40d3bf7f1d10e505b5/Mr_J_Wyrwal___Mrs_A_Stempien-Wyrwal_v_Chapel_Cottage_Plants_Ltd_3328257-19_RECONSIDERATION_JUDGMENT_.pdf", "title": "Operative/procedural reasoning", "locator": "Paragraph 22", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "First-instance strike-out reasoning, not binding precedent. The decision does not hold that every person with both depression and addiction lacks disability protection. Source contains typographical inconsistencies in some related claim numbers; the principal case number is used here.", "raw": { "id": "case-wyrwal-2021", "title": "Alcohol-related behaviour and an underlying depression argument", "case_reference": "Wyrwal and Stempien-Wyrwal v Chapel Cottage Plants Ltd, 3328257/2019 and related claims", "court": "Employment Tribunal (Bury St Edmunds)", "date": "2021-03-05", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "issue": "Excluded addiction; coexisting depression; reason for dismissal", "summary": "The first claimant argued that alcohol addiction arose from depression. In the reconsidered strike-out judgment, the tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the effective reason for dismissal would be found to be the underlying depression rather than the alcohol-related behaviour identified by the employer.", "outcome": "The first claimant’s disability-discrimination and unfair-dismissal claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment also disposed of related claims.", "appeal_status": "This judgment varies an earlier judgment; further appeal history has not been verified.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60508e40d3bf7f1d10e505b5/Mr_J_Wyrwal___Mrs_A_Stempien-Wyrwal_v_Chapel_Cottage_Plants_Ltd_3328257-19_RECONSIDERATION_JUDGMENT_.pdf", "source_title": "HMCTS: Wyrwal and Stempien-Wyrwal v Chapel Cottage Plants Ltd, reconsideration judgment", "source_locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 15–22 (PDF pp. 3–5); signature date 5 March 2021.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "First-instance strike-out reasoning, not binding precedent. The decision does not hold that every person with both depression and addiction lacks disability protection. Source contains typographical inconsistencies in some related claim numbers; the principal case number is used here.", "procedural_stage": "Reconsidered strike-out judgment", "tags": [ "Excluded addiction", "Coexisting impairment", "Misconduct", "Strike-out" ], "authority_level": "Employment Tribunal — first instance", "decision_type": "Reconsidered strike-out; no merits trial", "issue_groups": [ "Excluded conditions and causation", "Separate impairment", "Strike-out", "Unfair dismissal" ], "addiction_scope": "Alcohol addiction argued to arise from depression; the effective reason for dismissal was central.", "propositions": [ { "text": "The tribunal found no reasonable prospect that depression, rather than the alcohol-related behaviour identified by the employer, would be established as the effective reason for dismissal.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60508e40d3bf7f1d10e505b5/Mr_J_Wyrwal___Mrs_A_Stempien-Wyrwal_v_Chapel_Cottage_Plants_Ltd_3328257-19_RECONSIDERATION_JUDGMENT_.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 17–21", "kind": "First-instance strike-out reasoning" }, { "text": "The unfair-dismissal claim was also struck out under the no-reasonable-prospect test.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60508e40d3bf7f1d10e505b5/Mr_J_Wyrwal___Mrs_A_Stempien-Wyrwal_v_Chapel_Cottage_Plants_Ltd_3328257-19_RECONSIDERATION_JUDGMENT_.pdf", "locator": "Paragraph 22", "kind": "Operative/procedural reasoning" } ], "connected_decisions": [], "history_check": "The reviewed judgment varies an earlier order. Further appellate history remains unverified.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16", "additional_sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60508e40d3bf7f1d10e505b5/Mr_J_Wyrwal___Mrs_A_Stempien-Wyrwal_v_Chapel_Cottage_Plants_Ltd_3328257-19_RECONSIDERATION_JUDGMENT_.pdf", "title": "First-instance strike-out reasoning", "locator": "Paragraphs 17–21" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60508e40d3bf7f1d10e505b5/Mr_J_Wyrwal___Mrs_A_Stempien-Wyrwal_v_Chapel_Cottage_Plants_Ltd_3328257-19_RECONSIDERATION_JUDGMENT_.pdf", "title": "Operative/procedural reasoning", "locator": "Paragraph 22" } ] }, "highlights": [ "Employment Tribunal (Bury St Edmunds)", "2021-03-05" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-wyrwal-2021.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Alcohol-related behaviour and an underlying depression argument. Record case-wyrwal-2021, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-wyrwal-2021.html" }, { "id": "case-morgan-2021", "title": "Coexisting mental-health disability and a supported return to work", "summary": "On the medical and other evidence, the tribunal found a qualifying mental-health disability despite alcohol and prescription-medication misuse. It found that the employer ought reasonably to have known of the disability and upheld claims concerning discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments and constructive unfair dismissal.", "category": "Separate impairment and excluded addiction", "geography": "Scotland", "period": "2021-02-10", "status": "Final merits and remedy judgment", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "Morgan v Clearwater Fire Ltd and others, 4103070/2019" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Aberdeen)" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Coexisting mental-health impairment; employer knowledge; reasonable adjustments" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "Claims under Equality Act sections 15, 20 and 21 and constructive unfair dismissal succeeded against the company; compensation was £20,727.46. Harassment and claims against the individual respondents were dismissed." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "Final first-instance judgment verified; later appeal or reconsideration outcome has not been verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Tribunal — first instance" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Separate qualifying mental-health impairment despite alcohol and medication misuse." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "No subsequent appellate outcome verified. Do not use this case to assert that substance misuse alone is protected." }, { "label": "First-instance findings", "value": "The tribunal found a qualifying mental-health disability and constructive employer knowledge on the medical, functional and communication evidence. [Source: Paragraphs 217–218]" }, { "label": "Operative disposition", "value": "Section 15, adjustment and constructive-dismissal claims succeeded against the company. Harassment and individual-respondent claims failed; the total award was £20,727.46. [Source: Paragraphs 257–259]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/607064f8d3bf7f401659fd74/Mr_L_Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others_4103070.2019.pdf", "title": "HMCTS: Morgan v Clearwater Fire Ltd and others, final judgment", "locator": "Operative judgment (PDF pp. 1–2); paragraphs 217–218 and 257–259." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/607064f8d3bf7f401659fd74/Mr_L_Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others_4103070.2019.pdf", "title": "First-instance findings", "locator": "Paragraphs 217–218", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/607064f8d3bf7f401659fd74/Mr_L_Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others_4103070.2019.pdf", "title": "Operative disposition", "locator": "Paragraphs 257–259", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e15dd2240f0b65dc9851a37/Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others-4103070.2019-Preliminary.pdf", "title": "Preliminary strike-out decision", "locator": "Same dispute, not an additional independent case. Located via official-domain search; current 2021 final judgment is the controlling recorded outcome.", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "First-instance decision on detailed evidence; it does not establish that substance misuse by itself is a disability. The 2019 preliminary decision was followed by this final judgment and should not be counted as a second independent case.", "raw": { "id": "case-morgan-2021", "title": "Coexisting mental-health disability and a supported return to work", "case_reference": "Morgan v Clearwater Fire Ltd and others, 4103070/2019", "court": "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Aberdeen)", "date": "2021-02-10", "jurisdiction": "Scotland", "issue": "Coexisting mental-health impairment; employer knowledge; reasonable adjustments", "summary": "On the medical and other evidence, the tribunal found a qualifying mental-health disability despite alcohol and prescription-medication misuse. It found that the employer ought reasonably to have known of the disability and upheld claims concerning discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments and constructive unfair dismissal.", "outcome": "Claims under Equality Act sections 15, 20 and 21 and constructive unfair dismissal succeeded against the company; compensation was £20,727.46. Harassment and claims against the individual respondents were dismissed.", "appeal_status": "Final first-instance judgment verified; later appeal or reconsideration outcome has not been verified.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/607064f8d3bf7f401659fd74/Mr_L_Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others_4103070.2019.pdf", "source_title": "HMCTS: Morgan v Clearwater Fire Ltd and others, final judgment", "source_locator": "Operative judgment (PDF pp. 1–2); paragraphs 217–218 and 257–259.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "First-instance decision on detailed evidence; it does not establish that substance misuse by itself is a disability. The 2019 preliminary decision was followed by this final judgment and should not be counted as a second independent case.", "procedural_stage": "Final merits and remedy judgment", "tags": [ "Coexisting impairment", "Reasonable adjustments", "Employer knowledge", "Unfair dismissal" ], "authority_level": "Employment Tribunal — first instance", "decision_type": "Final merits and remedy judgment following earlier preliminary decision", "issue_groups": [ "Separate impairment and excluded addiction", "Employer knowledge", "Reasonable adjustments", "Constructive dismissal" ], "addiction_scope": "Separate qualifying mental-health impairment despite alcohol and medication misuse.", "propositions": [ { "text": "The tribunal found a qualifying mental-health disability and constructive employer knowledge on the medical, functional and communication evidence.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/607064f8d3bf7f401659fd74/Mr_L_Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others_4103070.2019.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 217–218", "kind": "First-instance findings" }, { "text": "Section 15, adjustment and constructive-dismissal claims succeeded against the company. Harassment and individual-respondent claims failed; the total award was £20,727.46.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/607064f8d3bf7f401659fd74/Mr_L_Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others_4103070.2019.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 257–259", "kind": "Operative disposition" } ], "connected_decisions": [ { "stage": "Preliminary strike-out decision", "date": "2019-12-20", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e15dd2240f0b65dc9851a37/Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others-4103070.2019-Preliminary.pdf", "note": "Same dispute, not an additional independent case. Located via official-domain search; current 2021 final judgment is the controlling recorded outcome." } ], "history_check": "No subsequent appellate outcome verified. Do not use this case to assert that substance misuse alone is protected.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16", "additional_sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/607064f8d3bf7f401659fd74/Mr_L_Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others_4103070.2019.pdf", "title": "First-instance findings", "locator": "Paragraphs 217–218" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/607064f8d3bf7f401659fd74/Mr_L_Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others_4103070.2019.pdf", "title": "Operative disposition", "locator": "Paragraphs 257–259" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e15dd2240f0b65dc9851a37/Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others-4103070.2019-Preliminary.pdf", "title": "Preliminary strike-out decision", "locator": "Same dispute, not an additional independent case. Located via official-domain search; current 2021 final judgment is the controlling recorded outcome." } ] }, "highlights": [ "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Aberdeen)", "2021-02-10" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-morgan-2021.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Coexisting mental-health disability and a supported return to work. Record case-morgan-2021, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-morgan-2021.html" }, { "id": "case-rowley-2019", "title": "The origin of dependency and proof of a separate impairment", "summary": "The tribunal found that the stated depressive impairment and the required effects of separate work-related stress had not been established on the evidence. It also found that the dependency had not originally arisen from medically prescribed drugs, so the regulation 3(2) exception did not apply on these facts.", "category": "Excluded addiction", "geography": "England and Wales", "period": "2019-04-29", "status": "Disability-status determination", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "Rowley v Department for Work and Pensions, 1811127/2018" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Excluded addiction; medically prescribed-drug exception; disability evidence" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "Claimant found not disabled for these claims; section 15 discrimination and reasonable-adjustment claims dismissed. A separate unfair-dismissal claim was later dismissed by a judgment dated 3 February 2020." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "The 29 April 2019 disability-status judgment, 3 February 2020 unfair-dismissal judgment and subsequent refusal of reconsideration have been identified in the official case family. No appellate judgment has been verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Tribunal — first instance" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Dependency origin and evidence for a distinct depressive/stress impairment." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "Official case family checked 16 October 2026. No appellate judgment verified. Do not generalise the broad language in paragraph 7 into a rule excluding every separate impairment caused by addiction." }, { "label": "First-instance finding", "value": "On the records before it, dependency had not originated in medically prescribed drugs, so the regulation 3(2) exception did not apply. [Source: Paragraphs 5–9, particularly paragraph 7]" }, { "label": "First-instance evidence assessment", "value": "Evidence did not establish the alleged depression or the necessary effects of separate work-related stress; the discrimination claims were dismissed. [Source: Paragraphs 9–11 and operative judgment]" }, { "label": "Connected disposition", "value": "The later unfair-dismissal claim failed. [Source: Reserved judgment, 3 February 2020, operative paragraph 1]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cc9a255ed915d5dc3e50dc8/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018_-_Final.pdf", "title": "HMCTS: Rowley v Department for Work and Pensions, disability judgment and reasons", "locator": "Judgment and paragraphs 5–11; later judgment linked on the GOV.UK case page." }, { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-s-rowley-v-department-for-work-and-pensions-1811127-2018", "title": "GOV.UK case page with later decisions", "locator": "", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cc9a255ed915d5dc3e50dc8/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018_-_Final.pdf", "title": "First-instance finding", "locator": "Paragraphs 5–9, particularly paragraph 7", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cc9a255ed915d5dc3e50dc8/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018_-_Final.pdf", "title": "First-instance evidence assessment", "locator": "Paragraphs 9–11 and operative judgment", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e4bf986e90e074dccbae774/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work___Pensions__-_1811127.2018.pdf", "title": "Connected disposition", "locator": "Reserved judgment, 3 February 2020, operative paragraph 1", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e4bf986e90e074dccbae774/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work___Pensions__-_1811127.2018.pdf", "title": "Unfair-dismissal judgment", "locator": "2020-02-03", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e675e1586650c513c7afeda/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018.pdf", "title": "Reconsideration refused", "locator": "Signed 26 February 2020; refuses the 19 February 2020 application to reconsider the unfair-dismissal judgment.", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "First-instance disability-status decision with evidential limitations recorded by the judge. It is not authority that all impairments caused by addiction are excluded. Later prescribing to treat an existing dependency was distinguished from dependency originally caused by prescribed treatment.", "raw": { "id": "case-rowley-2019", "title": "The origin of dependency and proof of a separate impairment", "case_reference": "Rowley v Department for Work and Pensions, 1811127/2018", "court": "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)", "date": "2019-04-29", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "issue": "Excluded addiction; medically prescribed-drug exception; disability evidence", "summary": "The tribunal found that the stated depressive impairment and the required effects of separate work-related stress had not been established on the evidence. It also found that the dependency had not originally arisen from medically prescribed drugs, so the regulation 3(2) exception did not apply on these facts.", "outcome": "Claimant found not disabled for these claims; section 15 discrimination and reasonable-adjustment claims dismissed. A separate unfair-dismissal claim was later dismissed by a judgment dated 3 February 2020.", "appeal_status": "The 29 April 2019 disability-status judgment, 3 February 2020 unfair-dismissal judgment and subsequent refusal of reconsideration have been identified in the official case family. No appellate judgment has been verified.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cc9a255ed915d5dc3e50dc8/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018_-_Final.pdf", "source_title": "HMCTS: Rowley v Department for Work and Pensions, disability judgment and reasons", "source_locator": "Judgment and paragraphs 5–11; later judgment linked on the GOV.UK case page.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "First-instance disability-status decision with evidential limitations recorded by the judge. It is not authority that all impairments caused by addiction are excluded. Later prescribing to treat an existing dependency was distinguished from dependency originally caused by prescribed treatment.", "procedural_stage": "Disability-status determination", "tags": [ "Excluded addiction", "Prescribed medication", "Disability evidence" ], "additional_sources": [ { "title": "GOV.UK case page with later decisions", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-s-rowley-v-department-for-work-and-pensions-1811127-2018" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cc9a255ed915d5dc3e50dc8/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018_-_Final.pdf", "title": "First-instance finding", "locator": "Paragraphs 5–9, particularly paragraph 7" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cc9a255ed915d5dc3e50dc8/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018_-_Final.pdf", "title": "First-instance evidence assessment", "locator": "Paragraphs 9–11 and operative judgment" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e4bf986e90e074dccbae774/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work___Pensions__-_1811127.2018.pdf", "title": "Connected disposition", "locator": "Reserved judgment, 3 February 2020, operative paragraph 1" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e4bf986e90e074dccbae774/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work___Pensions__-_1811127.2018.pdf", "title": "Unfair-dismissal judgment", "locator": "2020-02-03" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e675e1586650c513c7afeda/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018.pdf", "title": "Reconsideration refused", "locator": "Signed 26 February 2020; refuses the 19 February 2020 application to reconsider the unfair-dismissal judgment." } ], "authority_level": "Employment Tribunal — first instance", "decision_type": "Disability-status decision; connected unfair-dismissal and reconsideration decisions", "issue_groups": [ "Excluded addiction", "Medically prescribed-drug exception", "Disability evidence" ], "addiction_scope": "Dependency origin and evidence for a distinct depressive/stress impairment.", "propositions": [ { "text": "On the records before it, dependency had not originated in medically prescribed drugs, so the regulation 3(2) exception did not apply.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cc9a255ed915d5dc3e50dc8/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018_-_Final.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 5–9, particularly paragraph 7", "kind": "First-instance finding" }, { "text": "Evidence did not establish the alleged depression or the necessary effects of separate work-related stress; the discrimination claims were dismissed.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cc9a255ed915d5dc3e50dc8/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018_-_Final.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 9–11 and operative judgment", "kind": "First-instance evidence assessment" }, { "text": "The later unfair-dismissal claim failed.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e4bf986e90e074dccbae774/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work___Pensions__-_1811127.2018.pdf", "locator": "Reserved judgment, 3 February 2020, operative paragraph 1", "kind": "Connected disposition" } ], "connected_decisions": [ { "stage": "Unfair-dismissal judgment", "date": "2020-02-03", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e4bf986e90e074dccbae774/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work___Pensions__-_1811127.2018.pdf" }, { "stage": "Reconsideration refused", "date": "2020-02-26", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e675e1586650c513c7afeda/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018.pdf", "note": "Signed 26 February 2020; refuses the 19 February 2020 application to reconsider the unfair-dismissal judgment." } ], "history_check": "Official case family checked 16 October 2026. No appellate judgment verified. Do not generalise the broad language in paragraph 7 into a rule excluding every separate impairment caused by addiction.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16" }, "highlights": [ "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)", "2019-04-29" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-rowley-2019.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: The origin of dependency and proof of a separate impairment. Record case-rowley-2019, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-rowley-2019.html" }, { "id": "case-glassford-2018", "title": "Late disclosure of a drinking problem during a disciplinary appeal", "summary": "After an unauthorised absence during a period of suspended dismissal, the employee disclosed an alcohol problem at the internal appeal. The EAT considered whether the appeal should have been paused for further investigation. It held that the tribunal had adequately considered the material and was entitled to find the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses.", "category": "Dependency disclosure", "geography": "Scotland", "period": "2018-11-14", "status": "Appeal; dismissed", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "Glassford v Royal Mail Group Ltd, UKEATS/0012/18/JW" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Appeal Tribunal (Scotland)" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Unfair dismissal; disclosure; reasonable investigation" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "Employee’s appeal dismissed; the tribunal’s finding of fair dismissal stood." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "EAT judgment verified; any further appeal has not been verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Appeal Tribunal — appellate" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Late disclosure of alcohol dependency in an internal disciplinary appeal." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "Further appeal unverified. This is not blanket permission to disregard a late disclosure." }, { "label": "Appellate legal approach", "value": "Late material information can require further investigation; the employer's investigation remains assessed for reasonableness in the circumstances. [Source: Paragraph 15]" }, { "label": "Appellate application and disposition", "value": "Here the employer and tribunal had considered the dependency disclosure sufficiently; the appeal was dismissed. [Source: Paragraphs 16–21]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6fef09ed915d4a30a2e7d5/Brian_Keith_Glassford_v_Royal_Mail_Group_Limited_UKEATS_0012_18_JW.pdf", "title": "HMCTS: Glassford v Royal Mail Group Ltd, reserved appeal judgment", "locator": "Summary (PDF p. 3); paragraphs 1–4 and the concluding analysis." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6fef09ed915d4a30a2e7d5/Brian_Keith_Glassford_v_Royal_Mail_Group_Limited_UKEATS_0012_18_JW.pdf", "title": "Appellate legal approach", "locator": "Paragraph 15", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6fef09ed915d4a30a2e7d5/Brian_Keith_Glassford_v_Royal_Mail_Group_Limited_UKEATS_0012_18_JW.pdf", "title": "Appellate application and disposition", "locator": "Paragraphs 16–21", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "An unfair-dismissal appeal concerning a particular disciplinary history and the investigation undertaken. It does not create a general rule that an employer may disregard a disclosure of dependency or decline all further investigation.", "raw": { "id": "case-glassford-2018", "title": "Late disclosure of a drinking problem during a disciplinary appeal", "case_reference": "Glassford v Royal Mail Group Ltd, UKEATS/0012/18/JW", "court": "Employment Appeal Tribunal (Scotland)", "date": "2018-11-14", "jurisdiction": "Scotland", "issue": "Unfair dismissal; disclosure; reasonable investigation", "summary": "After an unauthorised absence during a period of suspended dismissal, the employee disclosed an alcohol problem at the internal appeal. The EAT considered whether the appeal should have been paused for further investigation. It held that the tribunal had adequately considered the material and was entitled to find the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses.", "outcome": "Employee’s appeal dismissed; the tribunal’s finding of fair dismissal stood.", "appeal_status": "EAT judgment verified; any further appeal has not been verified.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6fef09ed915d4a30a2e7d5/Brian_Keith_Glassford_v_Royal_Mail_Group_Limited_UKEATS_0012_18_JW.pdf", "source_title": "HMCTS: Glassford v Royal Mail Group Ltd, reserved appeal judgment", "source_locator": "Summary (PDF p. 3); paragraphs 1–4 and the concluding analysis.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "An unfair-dismissal appeal concerning a particular disciplinary history and the investigation undertaken. It does not create a general rule that an employer may disregard a disclosure of dependency or decline all further investigation.", "procedural_stage": "Appeal; dismissed", "tags": [ "Disclosure", "Misconduct", "Unfair dismissal" ], "authority_level": "Employment Appeal Tribunal — appellate", "decision_type": "Unfair-dismissal appeal dismissed", "issue_groups": [ "Dependency disclosure", "Investigation and disciplinary appeals", "Unfair dismissal" ], "addiction_scope": "Late disclosure of alcohol dependency in an internal disciplinary appeal.", "propositions": [ { "text": "Late material information can require further investigation; the employer's investigation remains assessed for reasonableness in the circumstances.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6fef09ed915d4a30a2e7d5/Brian_Keith_Glassford_v_Royal_Mail_Group_Limited_UKEATS_0012_18_JW.pdf", "locator": "Paragraph 15", "kind": "Appellate legal approach" }, { "text": "Here the employer and tribunal had considered the dependency disclosure sufficiently; the appeal was dismissed.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6fef09ed915d4a30a2e7d5/Brian_Keith_Glassford_v_Royal_Mail_Group_Limited_UKEATS_0012_18_JW.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 16–21", "kind": "Appellate application and disposition" } ], "connected_decisions": [], "history_check": "Further appeal unverified. This is not blanket permission to disregard a late disclosure.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16", "additional_sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6fef09ed915d4a30a2e7d5/Brian_Keith_Glassford_v_Royal_Mail_Group_Limited_UKEATS_0012_18_JW.pdf", "title": "Appellate legal approach", "locator": "Paragraph 15" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6fef09ed915d4a30a2e7d5/Brian_Keith_Glassford_v_Royal_Mail_Group_Limited_UKEATS_0012_18_JW.pdf", "title": "Appellate application and disposition", "locator": "Paragraphs 16–21" } ] }, "highlights": [ "Employment Appeal Tribunal (Scotland)", "2018-11-14" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-glassford-2018.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Late disclosure of a drinking problem during a disciplinary appeal. Record case-glassford-2018, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-glassford-2018.html" }, { "id": "case-bannister-2017", "title": "Depression, alcohol dependency and adjustments before dismissal", "summary": "The tribunal upheld a reasonable-adjustment complaint and a section 15 dismissal complaint. It found that the employee’s reaction to a required workplace move, arising from depression, caused the relevant absence and that an adjustment could have enabled her return. It considered and rejected alternative explanations for that absence, including the alcohol-dependency argument.", "category": "Separate impairment", "geography": "England and Wales", "period": "2017-03-30", "status": "Final merits judgment; remedy subsequently determined", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "details": [ { "label": "Case reference", "value": "Bannister v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, 2500750/2016" }, { "label": "Court / tribunal", "value": "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)" }, { "label": "Issue", "value": "Coexisting depression; reasonable adjustments; absence dismissal" }, { "label": "Actual disposition", "value": "The two disability-discrimination complaints considered at the final hearing succeeded. A separate remedy judgment dated 23 August 2017 ordered compensation of £75,294.89." }, { "label": "Appeal / later history checked", "value": "Liability and remedy judgments verified; later appeal or reconsideration outcome has not been verified." }, { "label": "Authority level", "value": "Employment Tribunal — first instance" }, { "label": "Addiction / medication scope", "value": "Depression and an alcohol-dependency alternative explanation; the tribunal attributed the relevant absence to depression." }, { "label": "Targeted history check", "value": "Later appellate/reconsideration outcome unverified." }, { "label": "First-instance application", "value": "Allowing a short period at the existing desk was a reasonable adjustment on these facts; other adjustments already offered did not discharge that obligation. [Source: Paragraphs 35–40]" }, { "label": "First-instance causation and justification", "value": "The tribunal attributed the relevant absence to depression and held the dismissal unjustified in light of the adjustment that could have enabled return. [Source: Paragraphs 42–47]" }, { "label": "Operative remedy", "value": "The later remedy order awarded £75,294.89. [Source: Remedy judgment, operative order]" } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3912340f0b6122ed1e5e4/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Final.pdf", "title": "HMCTS: Bannister v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, reserved judgment", "locator": "Paragraphs 18–23 and 40–47; separate remedy judgment, operative order." }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3924340f0b6122ed1e5e6/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Remedy.pdf", "title": "Remedy judgment", "locator": "", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3912340f0b6122ed1e5e4/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Final.pdf", "title": "First-instance application", "locator": "Paragraphs 35–40", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3912340f0b6122ed1e5e4/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Final.pdf", "title": "First-instance causation and justification", "locator": "Paragraphs 42–47", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3924340f0b6122ed1e5e6/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Remedy.pdf", "title": "Operative remedy", "locator": "Remedy judgment, operative order", "note": "" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3924340f0b6122ed1e5e6/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Remedy.pdf", "title": "Remedy judgment", "locator": "2017-08-23", "note": "" } ], "limitations": "First-instance case concerning depression and specific adjustments, not a holding that alcohol dependency itself is a disability. Other parts of the original claim had already been dismissed before this final hearing.", "raw": { "id": "case-bannister-2017", "title": "Depression, alcohol dependency and adjustments before dismissal", "case_reference": "Bannister v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, 2500750/2016", "court": "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)", "date": "2017-03-30", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "issue": "Coexisting depression; reasonable adjustments; absence dismissal", "summary": "The tribunal upheld a reasonable-adjustment complaint and a section 15 dismissal complaint. It found that the employee’s reaction to a required workplace move, arising from depression, caused the relevant absence and that an adjustment could have enabled her return. It considered and rejected alternative explanations for that absence, including the alcohol-dependency argument.", "outcome": "The two disability-discrimination complaints considered at the final hearing succeeded. A separate remedy judgment dated 23 August 2017 ordered compensation of £75,294.89.", "appeal_status": "Liability and remedy judgments verified; later appeal or reconsideration outcome has not been verified.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3912340f0b6122ed1e5e4/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Final.pdf", "source_title": "HMCTS: Bannister v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, reserved judgment", "source_locator": "Paragraphs 18–23 and 40–47; separate remedy judgment, operative order.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14", "limitations": "First-instance case concerning depression and specific adjustments, not a holding that alcohol dependency itself is a disability. Other parts of the original claim had already been dismissed before this final hearing.", "procedural_stage": "Final merits judgment; remedy subsequently determined", "tags": [ "Coexisting impairment", "Reasonable adjustments", "Absence dismissal" ], "additional_sources": [ { "title": "Remedy judgment", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3924340f0b6122ed1e5e6/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Remedy.pdf" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3912340f0b6122ed1e5e4/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Final.pdf", "title": "First-instance application", "locator": "Paragraphs 35–40" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3912340f0b6122ed1e5e4/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Final.pdf", "title": "First-instance causation and justification", "locator": "Paragraphs 42–47" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3924340f0b6122ed1e5e6/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Remedy.pdf", "title": "Operative remedy", "locator": "Remedy judgment, operative order" }, { "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3924340f0b6122ed1e5e6/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Remedy.pdf", "title": "Remedy judgment", "locator": "2017-08-23" } ], "authority_level": "Employment Tribunal — first instance", "decision_type": "Final liability with later remedy", "issue_groups": [ "Separate impairment", "Reasonable adjustments", "Absence dismissal" ], "addiction_scope": "Depression and an alcohol-dependency alternative explanation; the tribunal attributed the relevant absence to depression.", "propositions": [ { "text": "Allowing a short period at the existing desk was a reasonable adjustment on these facts; other adjustments already offered did not discharge that obligation.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3912340f0b6122ed1e5e4/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Final.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 35–40", "kind": "First-instance application" }, { "text": "The tribunal attributed the relevant absence to depression and held the dismissal unjustified in light of the adjustment that could have enabled return.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3912340f0b6122ed1e5e4/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Final.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 42–47", "kind": "First-instance causation and justification" }, { "text": "The later remedy order awarded £75,294.89.", "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3924340f0b6122ed1e5e6/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Remedy.pdf", "locator": "Remedy judgment, operative order", "kind": "Operative remedy" } ], "connected_decisions": [ { "stage": "Remedy judgment", "date": "2017-08-23", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3924340f0b6122ed1e5e6/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Remedy.pdf" } ], "history_check": "Later appellate/reconsideration outcome unverified.", "proposition_checked_at": "2026-10-16" }, "highlights": [ "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)", "2017-03-30" ], "record_url": "https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-bannister-2017.html", "citation": "Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Depression, alcohol dependency and adjustments before dismissal. Record case-bannister-2017, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-bannister-2017.html" } ] }