Case Analysis: Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure [2026] EAT

Citation

Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure [2026] EAT (January 2026)

Issues

1. Whether the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by not redeploying the claimant into alternative roles.
2. Whether dismissal on grounds of capability amounted to discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010.

Background

Mr Chowdhury, a customer service assistant, suffered from plantar fasciitis which progressively restricted his ability to stand and walk. After a prolonged period of restricted duties and an unsuccessful redeployment search, he was dismissed on capability grounds.

The Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments

The duty under s.21 Equality Act 2010 arises where a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) applied by the employer puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons. The employer must take such steps as are reasonable to avoid the disadvantage.

The Redeployment PCP

The tribunal identified the relevant PCP as the requirement to be able to carry out the full range of customer service assistant duties. This PCP placed Mr Chowdhury at a substantial disadvantage.

Were the Proposed Adjustments Reasonable?

The claimant argued that reasonable adjustments included:

• Redeployment to a receptionist or help desk role, with "bumping" of the existing post-holder if necessary.
• Provision of training to fill any skills gap.
• Extension of the redeployment period before dismissal.

The EAT rejected each of these:

Redeployment. The essential criteria for the alternative roles required relevant prior experience and strong Microsoft Office proficiency. Mr Chowdhury had neither. The EAT confirmed that it is not a reasonable adjustment to disregard genuinely essential requirements.

Training. Where the skills gap is substantial — as it was here — providing training to fill it is not a reasonable adjustment. The EAT distinguished cases where a modest amount of training would bridge a small gap.

Bumping. The EAT confirmed that "bumping" — displacing an existing employee to make way for a disabled employee — is not required as a reasonable adjustment in the ordinary case.

Extending time. By the date of dismissal, Mr Chowdhury had been restricted for over a year with no clear prognosis. He had applied for only three roles. The EAT agreed that further delay was unlikely to assist.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)

The tribunal found that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of ensuring employees were capable of performing their roles. The EAT upheld this finding.

Commentary

This decision is a useful reminder that the duty to make reasonable adjustments, while important, is not unlimited. The key questions are:

• Are the stated requirements for a role genuinely essential?
• Is the proposed adjustment actually capable of removing or reducing the disadvantage?
• Is it reasonable, in all the circumstances, to require the employer to take the step?

Employers should document their redeployment processes carefully and be prepared to evidence that requirements are genuinely essential and consistently applied.

This case analysis is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.