Medical Cannabis, Drug Testing and Disability Discrimination: Lessons for Employers from Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently considered important issues concerning disability discrimination, workplace drug testing and prescribed medical cannabis in Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd & Others.

The decision will be particularly relevant to employers operating in safety-critical industries, where mandatory drug and alcohol testing is common practice. It also serves as a reminder that employers must ensure policies are not only lawful in principle, but also properly applied in practice.

Background

Mr Truman was a rail industry worker who suffered from a chronic medical condition for which he had been prescribed medical cannabis.

He applied for a safety critical role with SPL Powerlines UK Ltd. As part of the recruitment process, he was required to undergo a mandatory drug and alcohol test under Network Rail’s policy.

Importantly, the policy provided that where a positive result arose because of medication taken on legitimate medical grounds, the result could still be recorded as a pass.

The test was administered by Express Medicals. However, the result was recorded as a “fail.” As a consequence, Mr Truman was refused the role and was banned from undertaking safety-critical rail work for five years through the Sentinel card system.

Mr Truman brought various disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010, all of which were initially dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.

The EAT’s decision

On appeal, the EAT revisited several aspects of the Tribunal’s reasoning and clarified a number of important legal principles.

Reasonable adjustments and the application of workplace policies

One of the key issues concerned Mr Truman’s reasonable adjustments claim against Network Rail.

The EAT held that the Tribunal had not adequately considered whether the relevant provision, criterion or practice (PCP)  namely, allegedly failing to take account of relevant medical information when assessing the drug test result  had in fact been applied by Network Rail.

The Tribunal had also failed to properly analyse whether any such PCP placed Mr Truman at a substantial disadvantage compared with a non-disabled comparator who had tested positive for drugs.

As a result, the EAT remitted the issue back to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.

This aspect of the judgment is significant for employers because it reinforces the importance of carefully identifying:

• what workplace practice or policy is actually being applied;
• whether disability-related factors have been properly considered; and
• whether the process disadvantages disabled workers in practice.

Policies must be applied correctly

The EAT also noted that, had Network Rail’s policy been correctly applied, Mr Truman’s result should have been treated as a pass because the cannabis had been prescribed for medical purposes.

For employers, this is a critical point.

Many organisations have robust drug and alcohol policies in place, particularly in regulated or safety critical sectors. However, legal risk often arises not from the wording of the policy itself, but from inconsistent or incorrect implementation.

Employers should ensure that:

• managers understand policy exceptions and medical exemptions;
• occupational health and testing providers receive clear guidance;
• decisions are reviewed carefully before sanctions are imposed; and
• disability-related medication is considered on an individual basis.

Network Rail was a “qualifications body”

The EAT also confirmed that Network Rail qualified as a “qualifications body” under the Equality Act 2010 because the Sentinel card system effectively authorises individuals to carry out safety critical rail work.

The distinction matters because qualifications bodies have specific obligations under the Equality Act.

The EAT further confirmed that a qualifications body is generally not liable where it applies a lawful “competence standard”. However, the duty to make reasonable adjustments may still apply to the way in which competence is assessed.

This will be relevant not only to rail operators, but also to employers and organisations involved in licensing, accreditation, certification or fitness assessments.

Outsourcing does not remove responsibility

Although Express Medicals carried out the testing, the EAT made clear that Network Rail remained responsible for the testing outcome and the resulting ban.

This is an important reminder for employers that outsourcing occupational health or testing functions does not necessarily transfer legal responsibility.

Employers should therefore ensure that third-party providers:

• understand the organisation’s policies and legal obligations;
• apply policies consistently and accurately; and
• have appropriate escalation procedures where medical issues arise.

No liability for inducing discrimination

The EAT did, however, conclude that Express Medicals was not liable for inducing discrimination under section 111 of the Equality Act.

Under section 111(7), liability only arises where the third party exerts controlling influence or power over the discriminator.

The EAT found that Express Medicals did not have the necessary level of control over Network Rail’s decision-making process.

Key takeaways for employers

The case highlights the increasing challenges employers may face as the use of prescribed medical cannabis becomes more common.

While employers in safety critical sectors remain entitled and often obliged to maintain strict drug and alcohol testing procedures, they must also ensure compliance with equality law obligations.

Practical steps employers should consider include:

• reviewing drug and alcohol policies to ensure medical exemptions are clearly addressed;
• ensuring reasonable adjustments are considered during recruitment and testing procedures;
• training managers and HR teams on disability-related medication issues;
• auditing decision-making processes around failed drug tests; and
• carefully managing relationships with occupational health and testing providers.

Our thoughts

The EAT’s decision does not undermine the importance of workplace safety. However, it does demonstrate that employers must balance safety obligations with fair and lawful treatment of disabled workers.

As prescribed medical cannabis becomes increasingly prevalent, employers should expect greater scrutiny of workplace testing procedures and decision-making processes.