Working With a Disability: BMW Tribunal Case Reveals Unfair Dismissal After Covert Employee Surveillance

Published : August 4, 2025

In Mr Mohamed Kerita v BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited, an assembly associate succeeded in his disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims after the tribunal found he had been working with a disability without adequate support. The tribunal heard how his employer ignored medical advice and engaged in job surveillance before ultimately dismissing him for allegedly making a fraudulent sick pay claim.

Below, we unpick the BMW lawsuit, discuss the employment tribunal’s judgment and set out the disability criteria for legal protection. We then examine the laws surrounding cameras in the workplace, employee rights, and what individuals can do if they’re breached.

If you have any questions about your disability rights or believe they’ve been violated, contact us today. Redmans Solicitors are employment specialists, and following a brief discussion, we can address your queries and provide expert advice. To learn how we can help you now, simply:

The Facts in Mr Mohamed Kerita v BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited

BMW Lawsuit Background: Claimant’s Injury Origins

Mr Mohamed Kerita (“the Claimant”) began as an agency worker for BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited (“the Respondent”) in 2007. By 1 October 2015, he became an employee, working as an assembly associate.

The Claimant’s work was physically demanding, and on 12 March 2017, he began to experience “severe back pain.” This led to him being signed off as unfit to work that day until 21 March. He then saw his GP on several occasions leading up to July 2020, although he rarely took time off work.

This changed after July 2020, however. Regular sick leave, GP appointments and medication prescriptions soon followed to help the Claimant cope with his back pain. Following his appointments, his GP also recommended reallocation or amendments to his duties to help mitigate the impacts.

Workplace Adjustments Recommended

Unfortunately, one time when the Claimant resisted a specific task due to concerns about his health, one of the Respondent’s absence managers, Mr Richard Darvill, told him that they “could not just take an associate’s word for it that they have a back problem.” He explained how the Claimant’s concerns would only be taken “more seriously” if medical evidence were provided.

Then, due to continued periods of absence, the Claimant attended an absence meeting on 16 February 2021. Here, he learned that if his absences continued, he could be “subject to disciplinary action.”

Only the next day, however, the Claimant saw a physiotherapist after being referred to NHS spinal specialists. An MRI was recommended, which took place on 15 April and revealed that he had a “right paracentral disc protrusion.”

Despite subsequent recommendations from his physiotherapist and GP that certain tasks were “ergonomically” unsuitable, the Respondent assigned them anyway. This led to new issues with the Claimant’s shoulder and continued back problems.

Respondent Learns Claimant is Working with a Disability

By June 2021, the Claimant was referred to Occupational Health (OH). Following an assessment, an OH report was published on 28 June, recommending a workplace assessment to better understand his condition. It stated that his current tasks were “exacerbating long-standing back issues,” and while it couldn’t be certain, his condition likely constituted a disability under the Equality Act 2010.

In practice, the Claimant should have been redeployed or given adjustments to remove any detriments he was experiencing. During proceedings, he identified several less strenuous alternative roles that he could’ve undertaken. Yet, while the Respondent accepted that such roles were likely more suitable, it claimed they were already occupied by other “medically restricted individuals.” This was despite no evidence ever being produced to support its assertions.

With no suitable adjustments made, and forced to continue working with a disability, the Claimant’s back pain worsened. He took further sick leave between 6 and 27 December, resulting in another absence review meeting on 19 January 2022. By the end of the meeting, the Claimant was issued an absence warning with a 12-month review period. Although he appealed this, the warning was upheld.

Hospitalisation Before Job Surveillance

On 24 August 2022, the claimant was hospitalised after manoeuvring a large metal wheel. He had experienced “severe” back pain before feeling dizzy, vomiting and falling to the ground. It was then discovered that day that he had COVID-19 and was signed off work by his GP the following day. In the subsequent months, the Claimant’s return was discussed, but this was delayed due to a decline in his ability to walk. He asserted that doing so only aggravated his back issues. 

In March 2023, however, his condition was questioned by a physiotherapist who believed he should have been rehabilitated by then and was unable to explain why he hadn’t. The physiotherapist noted inconsistencies between the Claimant’s reported symptoms and the results of the assessments they’d carried out.

Although no consent had been provided to do so, the physiotherapist discussed the Claimant’s health with Mr Darvill. This led to suspicions being raised and the Respondent instructing security firm G4S to conduct job surveillance of the Claimant. Between 15 and 16 March 2023, a G4S surveillance operative followed the Claimant and filmed him walking for three miles over a period of one and a half hours.

Following the surveillance, the operative concluded, “there was no indication whatsoever that the Claimant had lower back, leg or shoulder pain or was experiencing sickness or dizziness.” Important to note, though, was that none of the footage ever showed the Claimant’s face.

Claimant Dismissed for Allegedly Lying About Working with a Disability

Mistakenly, while the Claimant had previously explained that he had difficulties walking, the Respondent believed he’d said he was unable to walk. As such, with the surveillance footage in mind, the Respondent formed the view that he’d lied about his condition and fraudulently claimed sick pay.

This resulted in a disciplinary hearing on 26 May, scheduled to consider allegations of misconduct. During the hearing, the Claimant’s union representative stated that the Claimant had never said he couldn’t walk, only that he had difficulty doing so, the videos never showed his face and that the surveillance operative wasn’t medically qualified to provide an assessment on his condition.

Nonetheless, by the end of the hearing, the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, effective immediately. The Respondent reasoned this was because he had fraudulently claimed sick pay and had unacceptable levels of absence. The Claimant then appealed this decision, but he was ultimately unsuccessful.

With no other option, the Claimant began Acas early conciliation on 5 August before initiating employment tribunal proceedings on 12 October. He claimed a failure to make reasonable adjustments, disability discrimination and unfair dismissal—all key issues relevant under UK disability legislation. 

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Claimant Satisfies Disability Criteria to Gain Protections

Before addressing the claims presented, the employment tribunal first had to determine whether the Claimant was working with a disability. And specifically, whether his condition met the legal definition under the Equality Act 2010.

This legislation establishes that a person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that impacts their ability to complete regular, daily activities long-term. After assessing the case facts, the tribunal determined that the Claimant’s condition met the definition as of 25 November 2020.

The tribunal then had to determine when the Respondent had, or ought to have had, knowledge of the Claimant’s condition. This was crucial, as the duty to make reasonable adjustments and protect against disability discrimination only arises where such knowledge exists. Following further deliberations, the tribunal determined that the Respondent knew of the Claimant’s disability from June 2021, when OH provided its assessment.

Majority of Claims Upheld for Employee Working with a Disability

With the above in mind, the tribunal addressed the first claim, which concerned a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Here, it examined how the Claimant had been required to continue working on four separate tasks deemed “ergonomically” unsuitable. Taking into account the less strenuous duties previously identified by the Claimant, the tribunal held that the Respondent should have redeployed him or considered reducing his workload. Since such adjustments weren’t made, this claim was upheld.

Moving on, the tribunal then considered the claim of disability discrimination. The key detriment alleged was the Claimant’s dismissal, which he argued was directly linked to his disability. The tribunal found that the Respondent had disciplined him for absences caused by his condition and later dismissed him for alleged fraudulent conduct related to the same. It concluded that the Claimant’s disability was the primary reason for the treatment he received and therefore also upheld his disability discrimination claim.

Finally, the tribunal dealt with the claim of unfair dismissal. The Respondent had dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct, related to overstating his disability and claiming company sick pay. However, during its deliberations, the tribunal identified several procedural shortcomings.

For starters, at the time of the allegations, the Claimant wasn’t actually receiving any company sick pay. But even if he had been, the Respondent didn’t undertake a sufficient investigation to identify the facts, nor properly inform the Claimant of the procedure or his rights. Taking all of this into account, the unfair dismissal claim was similarly upheld by the tribunal.

Having won the majority of his claims, the case will now proceed to a remedy hearing to determine his compensation.

Can Employers Legally Monitor Employees in the UK?

UK employers can monitor employees in the workplace through various means, but strict legal restrictions apply. Any monitoring that takes place must be proportionate, justified, and respectful of employee privacy, remaining compliant with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Generally, before an employee can be monitored, they must be informed that it’s happening, why it’s being done, and how it will be carried out. While covert job surveillance can be justified, it’s only lawful in exceptional circumstances, such as when criminal activity is suspected and overt monitoring would compromise the investigation.

If an employee believes their employer is unlawfully monitoring them, they have several avenues for redress. Depending on the severity of the circumstances, they could first have an informal chat or raise a formal grievance. Should internal measures prove unsuccessful, though, they could undertake ACAS early conciliation before initiating employment tribunal proceedings.

Get Help with Redmans

If you’re concerned about your employer’s monitoring or believe your disability rights have been breached, contact Redmans Solicitors today. It could be that you’re working with a disability without sufficient support, or believe covert recordings are being made. Whatever the case, we’re here to help.

Simply reach out now to find out how we can help by:

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