A disabled man has been awarded more than £329,000 in compensation after his employer placed him under surveillance and sacked him for allegedly working while on sick leave. Alan Jones, 59, had worked for Pilkington UK Limited for over 30 years before medical issues left him unfit for work.
The Employment Tribunal heard that Mr Jones suffered from radiation-induced neuropathy following cancer treatment in the 1980s, causing significant muscle loss in his dominant shoulder, and depression. It was accepted by all parties that he was disabled. Pilkington launched a surveillance operation after reports that Mr Jones had been seen wearing work boots and carrying out physical activity. Footage showed him accompanying a friend on a farming errand, briefly lifting a small bag of potatoes and passing a hosepipe.
Mr Jones was sacked in October 2019, but with the support of his union, Unite the Union, he brought legal action through Thompsons Solicitors claiming disability discrimination. The tribunal found that Pilkington failed to obtain updated medical evidence before deciding to dismiss him. The panel concluded that dismissing him on the mistaken belief that he was working elsewhere amounted to discrimination arising from disability.
Pilkington appealed the ruling at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in April 2023, but the appeal was dismissed. The tribunal upheld the original decision, confirming that employers who act on assumptions about a disabled worker's condition without proper medical evidence can be guilty of unlawful discrimination. Following the failed appeal, Pilkington has been ordered to pay Mr Jones more than £329,000 in compensation.
Speaking after the case, Mr Jones described it as an 'extremely stressful six years', during which he felt his character had been called into question. He said: 'I had given decades to the company. When I became unfit for work, I expected support – not suspicion, and certainly not to be dismissed for something that wasn’t true.' Bernie Wentworth, Head of Employment Rights at Thompsons Solicitors, said: 'This case highlights the consequences of employers making assumptions about disabled workers rather than properly understanding their condition and the medical evidence.'
