Rail Worker Jack Truman May Have Been Discriminated Against Following Failed Drug Test, EAT Rules

Published : May 20, 2026

In Mr Jack Truman vs Network Rail Infrastructure Limited and Others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that the Employment Tribunal (ET) erred in certain aspects of its approach to the rail worker’s disability discrimination claims and has remitted part of the case for reconsideration.

Read on as we examine the facts of the case, the original ruling and the EAT’s decision. We then examine the relevant employment laws in more detail and discuss the steps others affected can take.

If you believe you’ve been discriminated against at work, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment specialists, our team can assess your case, discuss your options and provide expert advice. We can also assess your eligibility to bring a claim and guide those eligible through the legal process.

It only takes a moment to learn how we could help you, simply:

The Facts in Mr Jack Truman vs Network Rail Infrastructure Limited and Others

Mr Jack Truman (the “Claimant”) applied to become a rail worker for SPL Powerlines UK Limited (the “First Respondent”) in 2022. This followed his already successful career in the industry. As his application concerned a “safety-critical role,” he was required to pass a drug and alcohol test. This was imposed by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (the “Second Respondent”).

Earlier that year, however, the Claimant was prescribed medical cannabis to help with the chronic joint pain he experienced due to genetic haemochromatosis. He understood that this would be flagged in the test. He, therefore, disclosed his medical use to the third party conducting the test, Express Medicals Limited (the “Third Respondent”).

Read More: Employee Data Breach: £650k Tax Scam Lands TfL HR Staffer in Jail

Notably, the Second Respondent’s policy was such that a failed test should be marked as a pass if the Medical Review Officer was satisfied that there was a legitimate medical need for the quantity of the substance found. Despite this, the Third Respondent marked the Claimant’s test a failure. This prompted the Second Respondent to place a five-year ban on him being a safety-critical rail worker.

A subsequent review and appeal took place, but both proved unsuccessful. The Claimant consequently brought his case to the ET, claiming disability discrimination. More specifically, he claimed discrimination arising from disability and that the Respondents had failed in their duty to make reasonable adjustments, having placed him at a substantial disadvantage. Yet when the ET dismissed his claims, he turned to the EAT.

Why The EAT Reconsidered The Case of Jack Truman

The EAT did not overturn all of the ET’s original rulings. It did, however, find a specific error in the ET’s approach to the Claimant’s claim under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 (the duty to make reasonable adjustments) as against Network Rail Infrastructure Limited.

The EAT held that the ET had not properly analysed whether Network Rail’s approach placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled workers, and that the reasonable adjustments issue needed to be reconsidered. In particular, it had not properly applied the established principle that a practice need not affect only disabled people to give rise to the duty. Even if a non-disabled person who equally consumed cannabis received a fail, such a practice may still “bite harder” on disabled individuals who consumed such substances for medical needs.

As a result, the EAT remitted the reasonable adjustments claim against Network Rail for reconsideration, with the outcome pending. The Claimant’s other grounds of appeal, including his challenge to the dismissal of his discrimination arising from disability claim against Network Rail, were unsuccessful.

The Legal Framework

The case of Jack Truman highlights a core principle in UK law. Under the Equality Act 2010, employers and other qualifying bodies have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. This duty arises where an applied provision, criterion or practice (“PCP”) places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared with those who aren’t disabled. In such circumstances, reasonable steps must be taken to avoid that disadvantage.

Read More: Former Star Wars Executive on The Acolyte Wins £234k Following Unfair Dismissal

A key aspect of this duty is that a PCP doesn’t need to disadvantage only disabled people to apply. Even where a practice also affects non-disabled people, it may still “bite harder” on those who are disabled. This means the disadvantage it causes them is greater than that suffered by their non-disabled counterparts. In Jack Truman’s case, the question was whether Network Rail’s drug-and-alcohol testing process and the way it handled the result placed him at a substantial disadvantage because he used prescribed medical cannabis for his disability.

What to Do if You are in The Position of Jack Truman

If someone believes they’ve experienced any form of disability discrimination at work, several avenues for redress are available. In the first instance, it’s often recommended to have an informal chat with one’s manager or bring a formal grievance. Both options provide the opportunity to avoid the costs and stresses of legal action. That said, the latter places additional legal obligations on the employer.

If neither provides a satisfactory outcome, though, the next step is to initiate Acas early conciliation. This free and independent process is required before most claims can proceed and offers another opportunity for an informal resolution.

However, where all other steps have been taken unsuccessfully, the final option is to bring an employment tribunal claim. Strict eligibility criteria and time limits must be met to proceed, but if successful, compensation may be awarded.

It’s usually recommended to gather evidence before taking these steps, as doing so strengthens one’s case. Due to the complexity of legal matters, it’s also recommended to seek expert advice.

Our Final Thoughts

The case of Jack Truman is a notable one. While it is yet to be determined by the ET, it highlights the importance of the duty to make reasonable adjustments and the need for employers and qualifying bodies to properly consider whether their practices disproportionately affect disabled individuals. A practice which appears neutral on its face may still breach this duty if it disproportionately places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage.

It will be interesting to see how the case unfolds. Nonetheless, employers should be wary of such issues to avoid similar liabilities, while employees must understand their rights to ensure they’re upheld.

If you have any questions or think you may have been discriminated against in the workplace, contact us today. Redmans Solicitors are employment experts, and following a brief consultation, we can answer your queries and provide specialist advice.

Learn more about the services we provide by:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.