EAT considers prescribed medical cannabis and disability discrimination in safety-critical rail work

Background

In the case of Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd and others, the claimant suffered from an incurable condition causing chronic pain and had been prescribed medical cannabis to manage his symptoms.

He later applied for a safety-critical role with SPL Powerlines UK Ltd in the rail industry. Under Network Rail’s mandatory drug and alcohol regime, workers in safety-critical rail roles were required to pass drug and alcohol screening before being authorised to work.

The claimant disclosed his prescribed cannabis use during the testing process. His sample tested positive for cannabis and the occupational health provider recorded the result as a “fail”. As a result, the job offer was withdrawn, and the claimant was barred from carrying out safety-critical rail work for five years.

The claimant brought disability discrimination claims against the employer, Network Rail and the occupational health provider.

Tribunal decision

A key feature of the case was that Network Rail’s own policy allowed a positive drug test to be treated as a “pass” where there was a legitimate medical explanation for the substance detected. The Employment Tribunal found that, if the policy had been correctly applied, the claimant should have passed the test.

The Tribunal also accepted expert evidence that the claimant could potentially have worked safely with appropriate safeguards in place, including monitoring and risk assessments.

Despite those findings, the Employment Tribunal dismissed the claims. It concluded that the requirement to pass the drug and alcohol screening process formed part of a safety-related “competence standard” under the Equality Act, which prevented one aspect of the disability discrimination claim from succeeding.

The Tribunal also rejected part of the reasonable adjustments claim. It concluded that the claimant had not shown he was placed at a particular disadvantage compared with non-disabled workers because a non-disabled worker who failed a drug test would also have been treated unfavourably.

EAT decision

The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that the drug and alcohol screening requirement formed part of a competence standard under the Equality Act.

However, it allowed part of the appeal relating to reasonable adjustments against Network Rail. The EAT held that the Tribunal’s reasoning on comparative disadvantage was unclear and required reconsideration. In particular, the Tribunal had failed to consider whether the drug and alcohol screening requirement might place a disabled worker taking prescribed medication at a greater disadvantage than a recreational drug user.

The EAT therefore remitted part of the reasonable adjustments claim back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

Learning points for employers

This case highlights the importance of ensuring that workplace drug and alcohol policies are applied carefully and consistently, particularly where they allow for individual medical assessment or exemptions.

The decision also demonstrates the importance of avoiding blanket assumptions that prescribed medication automatically renders a worker unfit for safety-critical duties. The EAT considered that the tribunal was entitled to find that the claimant could potentially have worked safely with appropriate safeguards in place.

Employers operating in safety-critical or regulated sectors remain responsible for the outcome of any testing, even where such tests are outsourced to external providers. Employers should ensure that occupational health assessments, risk assessments and review processes properly consider the individual circumstances of disabled workers, including the lawful use of prescribed medication.

---

For more information or advice, please get in touch with Eleanor Searle in our Employment team.