An employment appeal tribunal (EAT) has ruled that an employment tribunal was wrong to reject a disability discrimination claim brought by a rail worker who had been prescribed medical cannabis.
In mid‑2022, Mr Truman applied for a position with Powerlines, an organisation involved in constructing high‑voltage lines for the rail network. The post, a POS/AP lift planner, was largely office‑based and centred on planning lifting operations across railway sites.
He was not appointed after failing a compulsory drug and alcohol test administered on behalf of Network Rail, for whom Powerlines was carrying out work.
Truman lives with chronic pain caused by haemochromatosis and had been prescribed medical cannabis to manage his symptoms.
The test was conducted by Express Medicals, which issued a fail, despite Network Rail’s own policy stating that such a result should be treated as a pass where there is a legitimate medical explanation for the substance detected.
As a consequence, he was barred from undertaking safety‑critical duties for five years. His attempt to challenge the decision was rejected.
Truman subsequently brought disability discrimination claims against Powerlines and Network Rail, and a separate claim against Express Medicals alleging that it had encouraged or contributed to Network Rail’s discriminatory treatment.
The original tribunal heard that he was denied a full right of appeal because he had not yet become a contractor or employee.
When he contacted Express Medicals about the result, he was told that no prescription existed for medical cannabis, even though he had shown his prescription to the tester.
The tribunal accepted that the decision to fail him stemmed from Express Medicals’ view that he had consumed cannabis beyond what was prescribed.
An email from one of its clinical managers stated: “Although the prescription is supplied following medical advice from your specialist, use of any substance containing THC [tetrahydrocannabinol] is not permitted within Network Rail industry on the grounds of safety, even if prescribed. Therefore, the result and thus the outcome remains the same.”
Although the tribunal acknowledged that the result should have been recorded as a pass under Network Rail’s policy, it concluded that Truman had not been placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with someone without his disability.
The EAT has now overturned that finding. It held that the correct comparator was not a non‑disabled person who tested positive for drugs, but a disabled person who tested positive and passed because they had a legitimate medical reason.
“This was because the disabled person who tested positive had a legitimate medical reason for taking the drug so as to treat the disability; whereas the non-disabled person who tested positive did so because of illicit recreational use, i.e. without legitimate medical reason. The disabled person would suffer substantial comparative disadvantage,” the judgment explained.
Had Network Rail applied its own policy properly, the EAT said, Truman’s test would have been treated as a pass, allowing him to obtain a Sentinel card confirming his competence for rail work.
The EAT further found that Network Rail qualified as a qualifications body under the Equality Act 2010 because Sentinel cards authorise safety‑critical activity.
While such bodies are not liable when applying a lawful competence standard, reasonable adjustments may still be required in how that standard is assessed.
Responsibility for the test outcome and the resulting ban lay with Network Rail rather than Express Medicals, the EAT ruled.
It also determined that Express Medicals had not induced discrimination, because it had no controlling influence over Network Rail’s decisions.
This article is based on a piece written for Personnel Today
