Cases8000621/2025

Claimant v North Lanarkshire Council

22 October 2025Before Employment Judge J ShepherdScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The tribunal found the claimant was not placed at a substantial disadvantage by the rotational working pattern compared to non-disabled colleagues. She had successfully worked a fortnightly rotation since starting employment. The tribunal also found the respondent could not reasonably have known of any substantial disadvantage as the claimant never raised specific concerns about following the pattern or using work diaries.

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant had agreed to the contractual variation in March 2024 and did not resign until October 2024, nearly 7 months later. The tribunal found she resigned to accept a permanent work-from-home role elsewhere, not in response to any breach by the respondent.

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

As the claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments and constructive unfair dismissal both failed, the claim for discriminatory constructive dismissal necessarily failed and was dismissed.

Facts

The claimant, a litigation solicitor with ADHD, worked for North Lanarkshire Council from October 2022. In December 2023 the respondent announced a new hybrid working scheme increasing office attendance from 6 to 10 days per four weeks on a rolling fortnightly pattern. The claimant raised general concerns about the pattern being difficult for neurodivergent employees at a team meeting in January 2024. She agreed to the contractual variation in March 2024. After maternity leave starting May 2024, she resigned in October 2024 to take a permanent work-from-home role elsewhere, claiming the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the claimant was not placed at substantial disadvantage by the rotational pattern compared to non-disabled colleagues, as she had successfully worked a fortnightly rotation throughout her employment. The respondent could not reasonably have known of any substantial disadvantage as she never raised specific concerns. There was no fundamental breach of contract and the claimant resigned to accept alternative employment, not in response to the respondent's conduct.

Practical note

Employees must clearly communicate the specific substantial disadvantage caused by a PCP and give employers opportunity to discuss adjustments before resigning; general concerns raised in team meetings where all staff express dissatisfaction are insufficient to trigger the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Legal authorities cited

Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20Wright v North Ayrshire Council [2014] IRLR 4Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218A Ltd v Z [2020] ICR 199Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.95EqA 2010 s.20EqA 2010 s.6EqA 2010 Sch.8 para.20EqA 2010 s.21EqA 2010 s.39ERA 1996 s.94

Case details

Case number
8000621/2025
Decision date
22 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
North Lanarkshire Council
Sector
local government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Litigation Solicitor
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No