BMW Faces Legal Action Over Unfair Dismissal of Disabled Employee

In a notable ruling, the Reading Employment Tribunal found that BMW unlawfully dismissed Mohamed Kerita, a disabled employee, after subjecting him to covert surveillance. Kerita had been signed off work due to severe back pain, which he had reported since 2017. The tribunal's decision, issued on July 9, 2025, underscores significant implications for workplace discrimination policies in the UK.

The case began when Kerita's physiotherapist informed BMW's absence manager, Richard Darvill, that Kerita was unfit for work. Despite the medical advice, Darvill and HR manager Akhil Patel instructed G4S, a private security firm, to conduct surveillance on Kerita, suspecting he was exaggerating his symptoms. This decision was deemed by the tribunal as a 'highly unusual step' and raised serious ethical concerns regarding employee treatment and privacy.

During the surveillance, which lasted for approximately one and a half hours, Kerita was filmed walking three miles. The report from G4S, however, failed to capture any visible signs of distress, as the operative only filmed from behind and did not document Kerita's facial expressions. Despite this, Darvill sought additional funding for further surveillance, indicating a persistent distrust of Kerita's claims.

In May 2023, Kerita was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct, including purported fraudulent claims for sick pay. However, during his disciplinary hearing, he argued that he required light duties, which were not offered. The tribunal ultimately ruled that Kerita's back pain constituted a disability under the Equality Act 2010, and found that BMW had discriminated against him.

Judge Emma Jane Hawksworth stated in her ruling that there existed a 'level of distrust or hostility' among the management towards employees with back conditions. This ruling is significant, as it highlights the need for companies to foster a more inclusive environment that respects medical advice and the rights of disabled employees.

The implications of this case extend beyond Kerita's individual experience. According to Dr. Sarah Johnson, Professor of Employment Law at the University of Cambridge, 'This ruling sets a precedent for how companies must handle disability claims and the importance of establishing trust between employers and employees.'

Moreover, the ruling may catalyze changes in how companies implement surveillance on employees, particularly those with disabilities. Kevin Matthews, CEO of the Disability Rights Advocacy Group, noted, 'This case is a wake-up call for all employers to ensure they do not infringe on the rights of disabled workers.'

As the workplace landscape continues to evolve, this case serves as a critical reminder of the responsibilities companies hold in creating equitable treatment for all employees, particularly those facing health challenges. The tribunal's decision not only grants justice to Kerita but also paves the way for future legal standards regarding disability discrimination in the workplace.

For further developments, stakeholders in employment law and disability rights will be closely monitoring how BMW responds and whether this ruling leads to broader reforms in corporate policy regarding disabled employees.