Truman v SPL Powerlines, Network Rail and Express Medical

What Happened? 

Jack Truman had a successful 13-year career in the rail industry. He lives with genetic haemochromatosis, an incurable condition causing chronic joint pain. In 2022, he was prescribed medical cannabis to manage his symptoms. 

When Mr Truman applied for a safety-critical role with SPL Powerlines, he was required to pass a drug and alcohol test in line with a policy imposed by Network Rail. In circumstances where an individual failed a test due to a banned substance being detected, Network Rail’s policy terms stated that this was to be recorded as a ‘pass’ if the Medical Review Officer was satisfied that there was a legitimate medical need for the quantity of the substance found.   

The test was carried out by the Express Medicals. Mr Truman disclosed his prescribed medication during the pre-employment drug and alcohol screening.  Despite this, Express Medicals recorded a ‘fail’ and uploaded the result to Network Rail’s Sentinel system. This triggered an automatic five-year ban on Mr Truman from all safety-critical rail work. SPL Powerlines did not allow him to appeal this decision.  

What Claims Were Brought 

Mr Truman brought disability discrimination claims under sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010 against SPL Powerlines and Network Rail. Against Express Medicals, he claimed pursuant to sections 111 and 112 of the Equality Act 2010 that it had instructed, caused or induced Network Rail to discriminate against him and/or knowingly helped it to do so.  

What Did the Tribunal Decide? 

The Tribunal held that, if Network Rail’s own policy had been correctly applied, the ‘fail’ should have been recorded as a ‘pass’.  It considered that Mr Truman had been treated unlawfully in this respect. Expert evidence showed that, with appropriate safeguards in place, he would have been capable of carrying out the role safely.  

However, ultimately Mr Truman’s disability discrimination claims were not upheld.   

One of the Tribunal’s findings was that Mr Truman was not placed at a ‘substantial disadvantage’ compared to persons without his disability by Network Rail refusing Sentinel cards and issuing bans without taking into account all relevant medical information, and not conducting a review of its decisions with regard to this. It concluded that he was under no more of a disadvantage than another worker without a disability who tested positive for a proscribed substance and whose medical information was not passed on. 

Mr Truman appealed this finding to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.  

The EAT ruled: 

• There had not been adequate consideration of whether Network Rail did in fact refuse Sentinel cards and issue bans without taking into account all relevant medical information, and refuse to conduct a review of its decisions or allow appeals with regard to this. 

• It was also unclear as to how the Tribunal had reached its conclusion that Mr Truman was under no more of a disadvantage compared to non-disabled people in respect of Network Rail failing to take into account all relevant medical information. The brief reasoning given by the Tribunal on this did not elaborate on what sort of medical information might be passed on in relation to a non-disabled worker who had failed the test because of recreational use of cannabis. It seemed arguable that failure to take account of all relevant medical information would ‘bite harder’ on someone with a medical need for cannabis than a non-disabled person who is a recreational user.  

• Express Medicals was not liable under sections 111 and 112 of the Equality Act 2010, as the legal requirements for instructing or causing discrimination were not met. 

What Was the Result?  

The case has been remitted back to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on these aspects of the reasonable adjustments claim under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010. The outcome could have significant financial implications for Network Rail if the claim is upheld, as awards could be made injury to feelings and lost earnings. 

More importantly, this case serves as a warning for how employers and testing providers should handle prescribed medications in safety-critical contexts particularly with the increase use of medicinal cannabis and other controlled substances used to treat ADHD for example. 

 Top 6 Lessons for Organisations 

1. Follow your own policies. Ensure that your drug and alcohol policy allows for adjustments based on legitimate medical need, make sure decision-makers apply it. Failing to do so could lead to discrimination claims.  
2. Where third parties make a decision which you follow (such as with testing for drugs), what controls do you have in place to challenge these decisions. 
3. Prescribed medical cannabis is legal and increasingly common. Train your teams to recognise and respond appropriately to declared medications.  
4. Individual risk assessments matter. A blanket ban on certain substances may not be proportionate. Consider whether the employee can work safely with appropriate monitoring or adjustments. 
5. Qualification and testing bodies have legal duties too. If you control access to a trade or profession, you may be a ‘qualifications body’ under the Equality Act 2010 -and have all of the corresponding responsibilities.  As with this case you could also be joined in the ET claim where you are considered to have induced discrimination through your policies and practises.   
6. Engage with the employee before making decisions. The Respondents in this case never contacted Mr Truman before recording the ‘fail’ result. A simple conversation could have avoided years of exclusion and costly litigation. 

How Can Thrive Law Help? 

At Thrive, we support employers to take a practical, legally compliant and people-focused approach by helping them to: 

• Review and update drug and alcohol policies (alongside any third party policies which influence them) 

• Train managers and HR teams on disability discrimination, disclosure of medication and reasonable adjustments.  

• Conduct risk assessments that balance safety with inclusion 

• Defend or resolve employment tribunal claims 

If you need help reviewing your policies,training your teams or defending Tribunal claims, get in touch with at enquiries@thrivelaw.co.uk or call 01138618101.   

📄 Read the full judgment: gov.uk