The claimant worked in the respondent's warehouse and it was agreed he was disabled by a back condition following an accident. As a result of the disability he had been transferred from the Ambient warehouse to the Returns & Recycling Unit from 2020 on occupational health advice. When that unit was outsourced in January 2023 under TUPE, he was treated as assigned to it, objected to the transfer, and his employment ended. The ET dismissed his claims, including indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation, relating to his duties, and held he had been assigned properly to the transfer group.

HHJ Feeny allowed the appeal in part. The ET had not misdirected itself on the question of assignment or otherwise erred in law in its approach. The lawfulness of the original decision to redeploy an employee is not part of the test for assignment. Although the ET erred in its approach to the victimisation claim, its finding on the “reason why” question was sufficient to override the error. However, the ET had taken a wrong turn from the outset in its consideration of the indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustments complaints. Those complaints were remitted to a fresh ET for redetermination.