Claimant v Waterstones Booksellers Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent operated a flexible policy allowing attendance time flexibility from the outset. A quiet space was agreed to be provided if requested and available, but was never actually requested by the claimant. The claimant wanted formal written documentation of adjustments, but this process was underway when overtaken by events. No unreasonable failure was found.
The tribunal found no unwanted conduct related to disability. Feedback on performance was a normal managerial function. The claimant interpreted neutral feedback negatively, but the tribunal found the managers did not speak aggressively or hostilely, and reasonable adjustments processes were initiated after the claimant crystallised her requirements in March 2024.
The tribunal found that the respondent did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. The respondent provided shadowing, a buddy, regular 1:1s, written instructions as requested, and flexibility on start times and office attendance. Meetings about performance were appropriate and conducted properly. The respondent did not behave in a way calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence.
Facts
The claimant, who has fibromyalgia and autism, was a part-time bookseller who in late 2023 secured a full-time secondment to head office as an Administrative Assistant in the Related Products team. She disclosed her disabilities at interview and was told the role involved 2 days in office and 3 days remote. From the outset she was given flexibility on start/finish times due to train issues and health. After her 3-month review in March 2024, she requested formal written documentation of reasonable adjustments. The respondent initiated a process including occupational health referral and adjustments documentation. In May 2024 she was told she was performing only 50% of the tasks expected, which distressed her. She raised a formal grievance alleging disability discrimination, which was not upheld. She resigned in August 2024 citing breach of contract and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the respondent had a flexible attendance policy in place from the outset which met the claimant's needs regarding travel times, and agreed to provide quiet spaces when requested (though this was never requested). The tribunal found no harassment, concluding that performance feedback was appropriate managerial conduct and that meetings were conducted properly, not aggressively. The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, noting the respondent provided support including shadowing, a buddy, regular 1:1s, and flexibility, and that it was for the claimant to identify disadvantages and suggest adjustments.
Practical note
Employers discharging the duty to make reasonable adjustments can rely on a general flexible policy if it meets the disabled employee's specific needs, even if not formally documented as a disability adjustment, and employees must identify specific disadvantages and request adjustments rather than expecting employers to anticipate them.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6009955/2024
- Decision date
- 19 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Administrative Assistant
- Service
- 8 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No