Claimant v Alten Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent subjected the claimant to unfavourable treatment (ending direct hire route, cancelling Cummins meeting, not proposing him for roles) because of things arising from his disability (increased risk of COVID-19, need for adjustments, reduced ability to attend site). The respondent failed to show this was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, as it could have explored reasonable adjustments with clients but chose not to.
The respondent's PCP requiring engineers to work on-site put the claimant at substantial disadvantage due to his MS and impaired immunity. The claimant proposed reasonable adjustments (managing on-site work between the team, isolated workspace, working from home). The respondent's own witnesses agreed these were feasible but the respondent never discussed adjustments with any clients or implemented them, breaching the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
While the PCPs applied to the claimant and put him personally at a disadvantage, there was insufficient evidence before the tribunal to establish that people with MS as a group would be put at particular disadvantage, given the extremely varied nature of MS symptoms. Group disadvantage was not established, so the claim failed.
Facts
The claimant, a CFD engineer with multiple sclerosis, was recruited by the respondent on a 'direct hire' basis in August 2023. On 7 August 2023, he disclosed his disability and requested reasonable adjustments including reduced on-site attendance due to immunosuppression and COVID-19 risk. Immediately after disclosure, the respondent cancelled a scheduled client meeting, removed him from the direct hire route to a less favourable project hire route, and ultimately did not propose him for any roles. The respondent never discussed reasonable adjustments with any clients despite the claimant's clear requests and an occupational health report supporting his proposed adjustments.
Decision
The tribunal found the respondent discriminated against the claimant by treating him unfavourably because of things arising from his disability (s.15 claim succeeded) and by failing to make reasonable adjustments such as managing on-site work between the team or providing isolated workspace (s.20/21 claim succeeded). The respondent failed to show its treatment was justified and never explored adjustments with clients. The indirect discrimination claim failed because group disadvantage for people with MS was not established. A remedy hearing will follow.
Practical note
Employers cannot refuse to consider or discuss reasonable adjustments with clients for disabled candidates simply because adjustments may be needed, and must actively explore feasible adjustments rather than assuming they cannot be accommodated.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2219245/2023
- Decision date
- 22 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Alten Ltd
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamic) engineer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No