A Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal has ordered a prison service employer to pay a disabled custody prison officer more than £38,000 after finding it failed to make reasonable adjustments when she was removed from a role that had accommodated her disabilities. The judgment, issued on 21 July 2026, dismissed her separate claim of direct disability discrimination.

The claimant, a Custody Prison Officer employed at a Northern Ireland prison since February 2018, was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis. Following a period of sickness absence from August 2022, she was transferred to the Prisoner Development Unit (PDU) in January 2023 as a reasonable adjustment, on the basis of occupational health advice recommending a post with more sedentary duties, reduced likelihood of control and restraint procedures, reduced walking distance, and a domestic shift pattern.

In June 2023, the officer competed in a recruitment process and secured a permanent post as a Personal Development Plan Coordinator within the PDU. In May 2024, the respondent required all PDU staff - including those already in permanent posts - to compete in a further recruitment process. The claimant participated but did not rank highly enough to retain her position and was told she would be transferred back to residential duties in the prison.

The tribunal found the respondent applied two practices that placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of her disability: requiring all PDU employees to compete in the 2024 process, and removing those who did not score highly enough from their roles. The tribunal concluded the respondent had constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability from as early as November 2021, and actual knowledge from February 2022 onwards.

Key to the tribunal's findings was the respondent's failure to consider any reasonable adjustments either during or following the 2024 process. An internal investigation report produced by the respondent in July 2024 - referred to in the judgment as the Nolan Report - had itself identified problems with the process. It found there was no justification for requiring staff who held permanent posts to reapply, and recommended returning the four affected staff, including the claimant, to their roles. The tribunal found the respondent did not act on that recommendation.

The claimant commenced sickness absence on 4 July 2024. She received no pay between 6 December 2024 and 7 August 2025, and was referred for a consideration of dismissal meeting in March 2025. She returned to work on a phased basis from 11 August 2025, resuming full service on 25 August 2025 as a Residential Officer in a different block, with her weekly hours reduced from 39 to 34.

The tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination claim, finding the claimant had not demonstrated less favourable treatment compared to an appropriate comparator. Three other non-disabled permanent PDU staff were also unsuccessful in the 2024 process and were not retained in their roles.

On remedy, the tribunal awarded £20,000 for injury to feelings, placing the case in the middle Vento band, with interest of £3,515.62. A further £13,921.45 was awarded for financial loss, with interest of £1,226.61, bringing the total award to £38,663.68. The case was heard before Employment Judge O'Neill, sitting with members Mrs F Cummins and Mr A Kerr. The claimant represented herself; the respondent was represented by barrister Chris Summers, instructed by the Departmental Solicitor's Office.