Case Law Update: Disability Discrimination

Nicola Mullineux

Nicola Mullineux

blog-publish-date

07 Aug 2019

blog-read-duration

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that when making a reasonable adjustment to assist a disabled employee, the adjustment should counteract the specific disadvantage caused by the disability.

Linsley v Commissioners for HMRC

The law

What is a ‘reasonable adjustment?’

In legal terms, it is when a provision, criterion, or practice by an employer places a disabled employee at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with a non-disabled employee, and the employer must take steps to avoid this disadvantage.

In simpler terms, it is a change to the workplace that allows people with a disability to work safely and without disadvantage.

Background to the case

An employee suffered from ulcerative colitis—a condition that could manifest itself in a sudden, unpredictable need for a bowel movement.

Ulcerative colitis can be aggravated by stress. The main source of stress for this individual was searching for a place to park her car.

Occupational Health (OH) reports had previously advised that she would benefit from a dedicated parking space as a reasonable adjustment.

Initially, the employer provided this.

However, the employee later moved sites and was not provided with a dedicated parking space.

Instead, alternative adjustments were put in place that allowed her to park in disabled bays or, if there was no space, in a parking controlled zone, with the provision that she would move her car later.

Her employer had a nationwide company policy in place outlining that priority needed to be given to staff requiring a parking space as a reasonable adjustment.

Following the move, the employee claimed that the time spent looking for a space caused her to become stressed and exacerbated her condition.

She later brought a claim to the employment tribunal (ET) for disability discrimination.

What did the tribunal say?

The tribunal initially dismissed her claim.

They did find that the employer had failed to comply with the company’s policy on parking space allocation. However, they concluded that the policy was not a contractual right and could therefore not be relied upon.

The tribunal wasn’t satisfied that a dedicated parking space was the best solution, or only solution, to the employee’s disadvantage.

What did the Employment Appeal Tribunal say?

The employee appealed against this decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).  The EAT upheld her claim and asked the tribunal to reconsider the case.

They found that the only reason the employer had for not following their policy was that managers had not been aware of it.

If the employer wished to depart from their parking space allocation policy, they needed a good reason to do so.

They also concluded that the employer should have been aware that looking for a space was a source of stress for the employee as previous OH reports highlighted and confirmed this.

The EAT outlined that, whilst it wasn’t incorrect for the tribunal to say that the dedicated parking space was not the only possible adjustment, the alternative arrangements provided failed to address the disadvantage caused by searching for a space.

What should you do to avoid a similar situation?

So… what should you be wary of when providing reasonable adjustments in your workplace?

Here are the main points to consider:

  1. When assessing how to remove a disadvantage through a reasonable adjustment, address the disadvantage directly, do not defer to a different company policy.
  2. Failure to do this could result in a breach of duty, even if you’ve made adjustments to address other issues.
  3. All managers should be familiar with any policy on reasonable adjustments.
  4. As the adjustments are highly likely to be considered ‘reasonable’, you will need to provide an explanation to the tribunal as to why they were not followed.

Expert Support

Worried how this latest ruling might impact your business? Dealing with a difficult HR situation and not sure where to turn? Speak to a Croner expert today for support and guidance on 01455 858 132.

About the Author

Nicola Mullineux

Nicola Mullineux, as Group Content Manager, leads a team of employment law content writers who produce guidance and commentary on employment law, case law and key HR developments. She has written articles for national publications for over 10 years and regularly helps to shape employment of the future by taking part in Government consultations on employment law change.

linkedin

Nicola Mullineux

Free to Download Employer Resources

  • Bribery Risk Assessment Form

    FREE DOWNLOAD

    Bribery Risk Assessment Form

    Read more
  • The Good Work Plan 2020

    FREE DOWNLOAD

    The Good Work Plan 2020

    Read more
  • Expert View - Non-Compliant Contract

    FREE DOWNLOAD

    Expert View - Non-Compliant Contract

    Read more
  • BLOG

    Top Five Cases of 2019

    2019 has been a turbulent year for employment law. Here are the top 5 key cases...

    Read more
  • BLOG

    Case Law Update: Gray v Mulberry Comp...

    The Court of Appeal has upheld earlier decisions that an employee’s belief in th...

    Read more
  • BLOG

    Mythbuster – Political Burnout Won’t ...

    The UK is getting ready for its third general election in four years. Hanging ov...

    Read more
  • REC

    CASE STUDY

    REC

    The events are brilliant. Amanda Chadwick, one of the expert speakers, is a very

    Read more
  • Grantley Hall

    CASE STUDY

    Grantley Hall

    Whenever we have a sensitive issue - sometimes involving individuals with protec

    Read more
  • Lady Heyes Holiday Park

    CASE STUDY

    Lady Heyes Holiday Park

    Overall it's definitely had a noticeable impact on the business and how I perfor

    Read more

Do you have any questions?

Get a free callback from one of our regional experts today