Claimant was successful in a claim that reasonable adjustments had not been made especially in relation to the type of work (live chat/emails rather than voice calls) being undertaken.

The claimant was employed as a Travel Consultant selling insurance policies. She started her employment with the respondent in June 2021 and worked from home. She continues to work in this role.

There were 55 consultants employed by the respondent and usually 30 on shift at any one time.  There were 3 elements to the role namely voice calls, live chat and emails. The claimant was initially trained on voice calls but was followed by live chat and then emails.

The claimant developed IBS and informed her line manager. The claimant requested longer and more frequent breaks as a result and these adjustments were agreed informally. The respondent sought to work with the claimant to ensure her shifts were suitable. This led to the suggestion that they would be 7-hour shifts but the claimant requested four 8-hour shifts and a shorter fifth day to allow for a full 35 hours. The respondent rejected this and stated it would be 7 hours each day.

When the claimant returned to work following sick leave, she left early stating she was overwhelmed by voice calls and had been refused a switch to chat/email. The claimant discussed this with her new line manager and stated that having a greater proportion of chat/email would assist her, but this was refused on the basis that it would not be fair to everyone in relation to workloads. They stated that they would ‘try’ to put her on chats/emails every week where possible. When the claimant returned after 5 weeks of sick leave, she was mistakenly put on voice calls and had to leave early. She made the request again regarding chat/email but was told that it was not possible long term as 80% of the work were voice calls. The claimant submitted a grievance in September 2023 relating to the chat/email versus voice call.  Due to an issue with sending correspondence it was not dealt with until April 2024.

In August 2023, the claimant was doing a remote training session, and she asked to have her camera off as she was ‘super anxious’. She was asked to start with it on and see how it went – when the claimant was unable to cope, she was told it was fine and to log off.

At a meeting in April 2024, the claimant states that she was told that no reasonable adjustments could be made and she was offered a settlement agreement to ‘part amicably’. The respondent stated that the discussion was around what adjustments could be made but as all could not be accommodated a settlement agreement was offered. The settlement agreement was declined. A second grievance followed but it was dismissed with the respondent stating that every effort had been made to support the claimant’s return from work and accommodate reasonable adjustments where possible.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was aware of the claimant’s disability and it was a disability within the definition given in the legislation.  There were a whole series of arguments made in relation to the range of adjustments that could be made but the overarching one related to the higher proportion of chat/email shifts which was requested. The Tribunal found that whilst most of the workload within the respondent was voice calls there was still a significant proportion that was chat/emails. They found that there was sufficient scope to provide the claimant with additional chat/email shifts while maintaining cover on voice calls.  The respondent argued that such an adjustment would have de-skilled other employees in chat/emails, but this was rejected as the Tribunal stated that such an impact across 50 other staff would be minimal. Therefore, it was found that this would have been a reasonable adjustment and the respondent failed to make it. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the failure to allow the claimant to switch to chat/email when she was struggling with the voice calls was also a failure to provide a reasonable adjustment. The Tribunal also found that having allowed a condensed return to work over 4 days would have also been a reasonable adjustment that could have been made but wasn’t.

A claim was made in relation to attending the training with the camera off. Whilst this adjustment was subsequently allowed by the respondent the Tribunal did find that the initial refusal was a failure to provide a reasonable adjustment considering the claimant’s disability.

The compensation to be paid to the claimant is to be ordered at a subsequent remedies hearing.

This case provides a whole series of reasonable adjustments as requested by the claimant which the Tribunal had to examine and make decisions on. Many of them as noted above were allowed with the Tribunal examining the respondent’s arguments against the make-up of the team, the workload, and the claimant’s disability. The Tribunal demonstrated the importance of the factual context within the workplace and the claimant’s disability in terms of each and every adjustment that was requested and refused as to whether there was a failure and whether the adjustment was reasonable. The Tribunal did make clear the overarching objective of the legislation in ensuring that employees with disabilities can remain in work (generally) but also in such a way to avoid having to take greater periods of sick leave. This is something which should be borne in mind by employers when faced with making adjustments for disabled members of staff.

You can read the case in full here.