RESEARCH / VERSION 1.1 / 16 OCTOBER 2026
Prescribed cannabis, rail certification and reasonable adjustments
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.
| Field | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Reference period | 2026-05-01 |
| Coverage | England and Wales |
| Status | Appeal; partial remittal |
| Source-check date | 2026-10-14 |
| Case reference | Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd and others [2026] EAT 54; EA-2024-000852-NK |
| Court / tribunal | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Issue | Prescribed medication; reasonable adjustments; safety-critical work |
| Actual disposition | 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 / later history checked | This is an appeal judgment. The ordered remittal is verified; no subsequent remittal result or further appeal has been verified. |
| Authority level | Employment Appeal Tribunal — appellate |
| Addiction / medication scope | Prescribed treatment for a separate physical disability; no finding of addiction. |
| Targeted 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. |
| Appellate reasoning | 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] |
| Remittal scope | 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] |
| Operative disposition | The appeal against Powerlines failed; Express Medicals succeeded on its separate cross-appeal. [Source: Paragraphs 156–160] |
Paragraph-backed propositions
- 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. Paragraphs 111–112 (Appellate reasoning)
- 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. Paragraphs 113–115 and 157 (Remittal scope)
- The appeal against Powerlines failed; Express Medicals succeeded on its separate cross-appeal. Paragraphs 156–160 (Operative disposition)
Interpretation limits
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.
Sources
- HMCTS: Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd and others [2026] EAT 54 — Summary, PDF pp. 2–3; paragraphs 156–160 (PDF p. 56).
- Appellate reasoning — Paragraphs 111–112
- Remittal scope — Paragraphs 113–115 and 157
- Operative disposition — Paragraphs 156–160
- EAT appeal judgment — 2026-05-01
Cite this record
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
Open the current interactive record · Dataset findings and methods