Cases6003531/2024

Claimant v NHS North-East London ICB

25 November 2025Before Employment Judge M CraftLondon Eastremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

The tribunal found the claimant's evidence of unfavourable treatment unsustainable. Mr Midlane offered a permanent adjustment reducing required office/site attendance to 2 days per week and offered potential redeployment. He did not give the claimant 7 days to accept an offer but rather asked if she wanted to explore the Band 6 position. The claimant chose not to seek further information or engage in discussions. This was not unfavourable treatment.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The tribunal found the respondent had already made substantial adjustments by reducing the required office/site attendance from 3 days to 2 days per week (compared to colleagues who were required to attend 3-5 days). The tribunal concluded the claimant's request to work entirely from home was unreasonable given the essential face-to-face requirements of the Senior Facilitator role, which included in-person interaction with GP surgeries, staff engagement, and observational tasks that could not be fully achieved remotely. The respondent also offered redeployment options.

Facts

The claimant, a Band 7 Senior GP IT Facilitator diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2015, moved to Hampshire in 2021 (approximately 80-90 miles from London) while working from home during Covid. When the respondent required Senior Facilitators to attend office/GP surgeries at least 3 days per week from July 2023, the claimant requested to work entirely from home citing travel costs, time, and health concerns. She suffered an MS relapse in February 2024 after making only one site visit in 8 months. The respondent reduced required attendance to 2 days per week and offered redeployment to a Band 6 role, both of which the claimant rejected.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. The respondent did not discriminate under s.15 because Mr Midlane offered reasonable adjustments (2 days attendance vs 3-5 for colleagues) and redeployment options, not unfavourable treatment. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the respondent had already made substantial adjustments and the claimant's request to work entirely remotely was unreasonable given the essential face-to-face requirements of the role including in-person GP surgery engagement and staff interaction.

Practical note

An employer does not fail to make reasonable adjustments when it reduces office/site attendance requirements significantly below those of comparable colleagues and offers redeployment, even if the employee's personal circumstances (such as a long-distance relocation) make any commuting difficult.

Legal authorities cited

Secretary of State for Justice and Anor v Dunn EAT 0234/16

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.20Equality Act 2010 s.21Equality Act 2010 s.15

Case details

Case number
6003531/2024
Decision date
25 November 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Band 7 Senior GP IT Facilitator

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister