"BMW accused of wrongfully firing disabled employee after surveillance"

BMW Worker Facing Back Pain Unfairly Dismissed After Covert Surveillance, Tribunal Rules

A tribunal found that BMW discriminated against and wrongfully dismissed a disabled employee after managers authorized secret monitoring, suspecting he was overstating his back pain.

Mohamed Kerita, who worked at the company’s production facility, had been dealing with back pain since 2017, the tribunal in Reading was told.

In March 2023, a physiotherapist informed absence manager Richard Darvill that Kerita’s doctor had certified him unfit to work for two months. The physiotherapist acknowledged being unable to explain the extent of Kerita’s pain or why he remained unable to work.

Darvill and HR manager Akhil Patel then hired security firm G4S to conduct surveillance on Kerita—an action employment judge Emma Jane Hawksworth described as “highly unusual.”

A G4S operative followed Kerita and recorded him walking roughly three miles in about 90 minutes. However, the tribunal noted that Kerita had never claimed he was unable to walk.

In their report, G4S stated they observed “no indication” of back, leg, or shoulder pain or any signs of sickness, despite not filming Kerita’s face.

According to tribunal testimony, Darvill later sought additional funding for further surveillance to ensure a "strong conclusion."

In May 2023, Kerita was fired for gross misconduct, including allegedly misusing company sick pay and prolonged absence. During a disciplinary meeting, he stated he needed lighter tasks but was told none were available and was sent home.

The tribunal determined that Kerita’s back pain qualified as a disability under the Equality Act 2010.

Judge Hawksworth stated that the managers appeared to distrust employees with back conditions and were reluctant to take their reports of pain at face value, often assuming they were exaggerating symptoms.

She added, “We concluded that the respondent made assumptions about what the claimant had said regarding his mobility and the G4S footage.”

The tribunal ruled in Kerita’s favor, upholding his complaints of inadequate workplace adjustments, disability discrimination, and unfair dismissal.