Cases6005955/2024

Claimant v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

18 September 2025Before Employment Judge N CoxLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

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

The tribunal found no causal link between the alleged unfavourable treatment and the claimant's disabilities. Where unfavourable treatment was established, the respondent successfully relied on the justification defence under section 15(1)(b) EqA 2010, demonstrating the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims such as data security, consistent application of policies, and managing staff absence.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The tribunal found that the alleged PCPs either did not exist as claimed, or that the respondent had in fact made reasonable adjustments (such as providing note-takers, allowing the claimant to review meeting minutes, and implementing phased return to work arrangements). The tribunal was satisfied that the adjustments proposed by the claimant would not have removed the substantial disadvantages she suffered and were therefore not reasonable.

Facts

The claimant was employed as an administrator by the DWP and was absent on long-term sick leave from 1 December 2022 to 2 January 2024 due to multiple disabilities including fibromyalgia, joint hypermobility, pancreatitis, osteoarthritis, and anxiety. She returned to work on a phased basis. She brought claims relating to: exclusion from a team reward scheme; removal of IT access during absence; refusals of special leave applications; delay in holding return-to-work meetings; refusal to permit recording of meetings; and alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments around her phased return.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. Claims relating to events before 2 January 2024 were out of time. The remaining claims failed because: (1) the tribunal found no causal link between alleged unfavourable treatment and the claimant's disabilities, or (2) the respondent successfully demonstrated justification for the treatment as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (data security, consistent policy application, absence management), or (3) the tribunal found the respondent had made reasonable adjustments and the claimant's proposed adjustments would not have been reasonable or effective.

Practical note

Even where a disabled employee has been on long-term sick leave, refusals of special leave requests, restrictions on IT access, and limits on recording meetings can be justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims such as data security and consistent absence management, particularly where alternative reasonable adjustments (such as note-takers and phased return arrangements) have been provided.

Legal authorities cited

Carreras v United First Partners Research UKEAT/0266/15/RNConway v Community Options Ltd [2012] EqLR 871Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme [2018] UKSC 65Ishola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112Smith v Churchills Stairlifts plc [2006] ICR 524

Statutes

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

Case details

Case number
6005955/2024
Decision date
18 September 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
central government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Administrator

Claimant representation

Represented
No