18 hours ago
Epileptic prison officer wins £440,000 payout after being dismissed over fears he would drop keys for inmates to snatch
An epileptic prison officer has won a payout of more than £440,000 after he was dismissed for fears he would drop the keys, which inmates could snatch
Andrew Mullinger was placed on restricted duties at HMP Holme House, Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham, after telling bosses about his condition, which meant he could not supervise inmates or carry keys.
Managers claimed the restrictions made it impossible for him to deliver 'good and effective service' and dismissed him months later.
But a tribunal ruled the Ministry of Justice had discriminated against him by failing to consider alternatives before sacking him.
The Middlesbrough hearing heard he has now been awarded £445,000 in damages.
Mr Mullinger, who joined the category B prison in March 2019, was diagnosed in early 2023 after suffering a seizure while on annual leave.
At the time, the prison was seeing 'very high levels' of sickness absence and a lot of staff were working on restricted duties whilst the governor was 'under pressure' to reduce those numbers.
When Mr Mullinger told his line manager about his epilepsy, she told him he should be placed on restricted duties, which meant he should not have prisoner-facing duties or access to keys, and should not work alone or at night.
An occupational health report advised that adjustments should remain in place until Mr Mullinger had been seizure-free for six months.
A second medical professional added that, if this milestone was reached, he could potentially return to his prison officer duties within two years.
In March, Mr Mullinger was absent for two days due to migraine and dizziness, an absence the tribunal noted was linked to his disability.
Later that month, he was asked to attend a meeting to 'discuss the prognosis for a return to full duties.'
Mr Mullinger's case had previously been raised in discussions with the prison governor, given his record of multiple absences.
During the March meeting, the governor remarked that Mr Mullinger had a 'high sick record' and voiced concerns, including the fact he was unable to 'draw keys and work alone.'
The governor dismissed Mr Mullinger and told him: 'Your sickness absence is very high and there are a high level of days on restricted duties. It doesn't demonstrate good and effective service.'
The prison officer was later handed a letter of dismissal which 'referred to concerns about lone working, flexible working hours, and not being able to carry keys'.
The panel said Mr Mullinger's two-day absence from work due to a migraine had 'influenced' the decision to sack him.
Mr Mullinger appealed his dismissal and said reasonable adjustments had not been fully explored before suggesting he had been treated differently from other staff.
His appeal was dismissed, but he took the matter to the tribunal.
Employment Judge Adele Aspden said that Mr Mullinger accepts that he could not work in a role that involved him carrying keys.
'That is not in dispute,' the judge said, 'Until [Mr Mullinger] was on an appropriate dose of medication, there was a risk that he would have a seizure.
'If he lost consciousness, there was a risk his keys could be taken from him by a prisoner (or a visitor, if he was in an area where visitors were present).'
But, the panel said that steps could have been taken to enable Mr Mullinger to perform an admin role, which he could have done without having to carry keys.
The judge said the impact of dismissal on Mr Mullinger was 'very significant' as he lost his career in the prison service and his claims of discrimination and unfair dismissal were upheld by the panel.
Employment Judge Aspden said: 'We have found that the [Ministry of Justice] failed to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments.
'Had it complied with that duty, [they] would not have dismissed the claimant on 14 March 2023.
'Even if we had not reached that conclusion, the [Ministry of Justice] has not shown why it could not have accommodated [Mr Mullinger] on medical suspension or sick leave instead of dismissing him at that time while seeking clarity as to when his medical condition was likely to be settled.
'The [Ministry of Justice] has not persuaded us that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving its legitimate aims.'
