Claimant v London Borough of Southwark
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent did not have knowledge of the claimant's disability as occupational health reports categorically stated she was not disabled. The claimant did not demonstrate she was at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons, having attended work full-time pre-COVID and continuing to attend church and public places post-COVID. The respondent offered reasonable adjustments including flexible hours and working from Tooley Street, which the claimant refused, insisting only on permanent home working.
Withdrawn by claimant during proceedings.
Facts
The claimant, a Business Services Manager with pulmonary sarcoidosis, worked from home during COVID lockdown. Post-pandemic, the respondent required employees to return to the workplace two days per week. The claimant refused, requesting permanent home working as a reasonable adjustment, citing COVID infection risk. The respondent offered flexible hours, alternative workplace at Tooley Street, and ventilation improvements, all rejected by the claimant who insisted only on full-time home working. Occupational health reports stated the claimant was not disabled and recommended adjustments but not permanent home working. The claimant continued to attend church and public places throughout this period.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the reasonable adjustments claim, finding the respondent lacked knowledge of disability (relying reasonably on OH reports stating she was not disabled), and that the claimant failed to demonstrate substantial disadvantage (having worked full-time pre-COVID with the same condition and continuing to attend public places post-COVID). The respondent offered reasonable adjustments which the claimant refused, insisting only on permanent home working.
Practical note
Employers may reasonably rely on occupational health advice stating an employee is not disabled if they have also asked supplementary questions and engaged with the process, and employees claiming substantial disadvantage must demonstrate it on the balance of probabilities, which is undermined by evidence of attending public places while claiming workplace attendance poses unacceptable risk.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2301919/2024
- Decision date
- 3 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- London Borough of Southwark
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Business Services Manager
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No