The Claimant worked as an Occupational Therapy Technician and suffered from a phobia about blood, injections, and needles. He was a disabled person within the meaning of the EA 2010. The ET, and then the EAT (read the full text of the judgment here, rejected his claim of disability discrimination after he was dismissed following a lengthy period of sickness -  he had been given several new job descriptions which attempted to address his concerns that he would be required to enter hospital wards for meetings and to collect patients, but none of the job descriptions satisfactorily reassured him, even though he had been told that he would not be required to enter the wards. He appealed to the Court of Appeal. The principal ground of appeal was that it was an error by the ET not to treat the requirement in various editions of the job description to go onto the wards as a PCP in themselves, separately from the issue of whether the Claimant was in fact to go onto the wards (and if so to what extent).

The appeal was dismissed. The ET were correct to view the interactions between the employers and the Claimant as a whole. From the time when the employers became aware that the Claimant had a disability they made it clear to him that it would not be part of his duties to collect patients from their beds or return them to their beds, still less to use a hoist to lift them out of their beds. They did not, therefore, impose a PCP which in any sense required or would in the future require the Claimant to do any of these things.