{"id":141012,"date":"2023-09-08T15:07:27","date_gmt":"2023-09-08T15:07:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/celebrity-hub.com\/?p=141012"},"modified":"2023-09-08T15:07:27","modified_gmt":"2023-09-08T15:07:27","slug":"diabetic-network-worker-wins-66000-compensation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/celebrity-hub.com\/world-news\/diabetic-network-worker-wins-66000-compensation\/","title":{"rendered":"Diabetic Network worker wins \u00a366,000 compensation"},"content":{"rendered":"
A diabetic Network Rail worker who was sacked for speeding on his way back from a night shift as his blood sugar levels plummeted has been awarded \u00a366,000 in compensation.<\/p>\n
Mohammed Yusuf Ali, who suffers from Type I diabetes, said the Lucozade tablets he normally relied upon to rectify an episode within five minutes, were \u2018stale\u2019 and \u2018hadn\u2019t kicked in\u2019 during his time at the wheel, an employment tribunal heard.<\/p>\n
As a result, the senior technical officer – who had a colleague with him as a passenger – didn\u2019t see the sign on the dual carriageway indicating the speed limit had decreased from 60mph to 40mph and was snapped by a speed camera driving at 62mph.<\/p>\n
An internal investigation suggested his speeding had been a \u2018personal choice\u2019 and Mr Ali was subsequently fired from his \u00a338,000 a year job, having been found to have breached the company\u2019s \u2018life saving rule\u2019 – to always obey the speed limit.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mohammed Yusuf Ali\u00a0was snapped by a speed camera driving at 62mph<\/p>\n
Mr Ali took Network Rail to the tribunal claiming he had been discriminated against because of his diabetes and won claims of disability discrimination and wrongful dismissal.<\/p>\n
A judge has now awarded him \u00a366,790, after concluding his speeding was \u2018inextricably causally linked\u2019 to his illness and his sacking had a \u2018severe impact on him\u2019.<\/p>\n
The tribunal, held in East London, heard Mr Ali worked as a senior technical officer at Network Rail – a \u2018safety critical role\u2019 – from 2012, where colleagues and line manager knew of his Type 1 diabetes.<\/p>\n
During a night shift on 13 February 2018, having completed paperwork in the Barking office, Mr Ali and his colleague Scott Smith, drove to a worksite at Southend East station, in a rental van – which was not fitted with the usual speed tracker.<\/p>\n
The tribunal heard that during work, Mr Ali started to feel symptoms of low blood sugar, such as weakness in his legs and fatigue – at which point he realised he had forgotten his blood glucose monitor, which he \u2018normally\u2019 carried with him.<\/p>\n
From \u2018experience\u2019, Mr Ali knew that taking Lucozade energy tablets could \u2018boost\u2019 his blood sugar levels when required and could \u2018rectify a mild hypoglycaemic episode in five minutes\u2019.<\/p>\n
Mr Ali did not tell anybody how he was feeling, but when the work was finished he still decided to drive himself and Mr Smith back to the depot as it was his \u2018turn\u2019 and was only \u2018fair\u2019 to do so.<\/p>\n
The panel heard that Mr Ali could \u2018still feel the effects of low blood sugar\u2019, which he thought was as a result of having taken \u2018insufficient\u2019 tablets to \u2018counteract\u2019 the physical efforts of working on the track.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mr Ali took Network Rail to the tribunal claiming he had been discriminated against because of his diabetes<\/p>\n
He didn\u2019t tell Mr Scott – who was tired and subsequently fell asleep – so, took another tablet as they were about to set off.<\/p>\n
Because of roadworks, Mr Ali drove back via an \u2018unfamiliar\u2019 route – in which he began to feel \u2018hot\u2019 so opened the window, the tribunal heard.<\/p>\n
The panel heard that by this point Mr Ali felt \u2018weakness in his legs\u2019 and was \u2018drowsy\u2019 – realising he was \u2018deteriorating\u2019.<\/p>\n
To try and rectify the situation he took more tablets, but his low blood sugar level \u2018was affecting his decision-making ability\u2019, with the tribunal assessing that he \u2018was not thinking clearly\u2019 and should have pulled over somewhere safe.<\/p>\n
Mr Ali\u2019s driving became \u2018adversely affected\u2019 – and when the speed limit of the dual carriageway dropped from 60mph to 40mph, he \u2018did not see\u2019 the sign, the tribunal heard.<\/p>\n
The panel was told that because there was no tracker to \u2018ding\u2019 to alert Mr Ali he was speeding, a camera recorded him driving 62mph in a 40mph zone.<\/p>\n
Mr Ali \u2018did not remember\u2019 the latter part of the journey, with the tribunal saying his \u2018focus had been severely impaired\u2019.<\/p>\n
He also claimed the Lucozade tablets had been \u2018stale\u2019 because the packet was not freshly opened.<\/p>\n
In March 2018, Mr Ali was sent a letter by the police of his speeding and fined \u00a3120 and given a three points on his licence – both of which he accepted.<\/p>\n
After informing his manager, he was suspended from driving pending an internal \u2018fair culture\u2019 investigation – but could continue in his \u2018in his safety critical role\u2019.<\/p>\n
In the investigation, asked why he had been speeding, Mr Ali said: No, diabetes makes me distracted at times.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat night I had taken a Lucozade tablet to boost my energy levels up but I don\u2019t think they\u2019d really kicked in.\u201d<\/p>\n
The report, completed in May 2018, suggested Mr Ali\u2019s speeding was \u2018a personal choice\u2019 – and Mr Ali\u2019s diabetes had not been considered a mitigating factor.<\/p>\n
In December 2018, an internal panel labelled Mr Ali\u2019s actions a \u2018reckless contravention\u2019 and that a disciplinary action would commence.<\/p>\n
The panel heard that Mr Ali \u2018relocated\u2019 to office duties in February 2019, which he found \u2018disheartening\u2019.<\/p>\n
The investigation report, completed in June 2019, stated that Mr Ali had been \u2018aware\u2019 of the speed limit – which the panel called a \u2018misunderstanding\u2019.<\/p>\n
The report considered the offence severe, because it had been a \u2018breach of a lifesaving rule\u2019.<\/p>\n
Later that month the disciplinary hearing was held, where Mr Ali was told he \u2018knowingly\u2019 drove even when he \u2018considered\u2019 the list of low blood sugar symptoms.<\/p>\n
He was told that to have broken the speed limit by over 20mph, \u2018not only put the life of yourself and Scott and [sic] risk but also other road users\u2019.<\/p>\n
Mr Ali was dismissed with immediate effect – and his diabetes was, again, not considered a mitigating factor.<\/p>\n
His appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n
Employment Judge Rachel Barrett said: \u201cMr Ali was dismissed because he drove in excess of the speed limit, and that was inextricably causally linked to the symptoms arising from his diabetes, as well as his own poor decision to drive.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn dismissing Mr Ali, [Network Rail] sought to pursue a legitimate aim, namely the safety of Mr Ali, his colleagues and members of the public.\u201d<\/p>\n
The judge said the company could have found another solution rather than dismissing him such as a \u2018no lone working\u2019 restriction.<\/p>\n
She said: \u201cThe prospects that he would in future ignore warning signs or fail to monitor his blood glucose levels again were, in the view of the majority, slim.\u201d<\/p>\n
At the remedy hearing, she added: \u201cAlthough the dismissal was a single event, and [Network Rail] did not seek to humiliate or belittle the Mr Ali in any way, the impact on him was nonetheless severe.<\/p>\n
\u201cHis employment with [Network Rail] was vocational. He had trained there, developed specialist skills and enjoyed the work.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have accepted that Mr Ali\u2019s self-esteem was damaged by the dismissal.\u201d<\/p>\n
As a result, Mr Ali was awarded \u00a312,000 for injury to feeling as well as \u00a343,832 for past loss earnings and nearly \u00a311,000 in interest – totalling \u00a366,790.<\/p>\n