Claimant v HM Revenue & Customs
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not at substantial disadvantage from lack of ergonomic chair, mouse, second screen or adjustable desk. For the chair, even if substantial disadvantage existed, the respondent provided it within 43 days of knowing it was needed (22 May to 4 July 2023), which was reasonable. For mouse and screens, OH assessment stated no upper limb issues and no substantial disadvantage was evidenced. For desk, OH report did not recommend it and claimant failed to raise issue for 18 months. Claimant's credibility was questioned due to inconsistent evidence about the chair's benefit.
Age discrimination was listed in the claim form but was not addressed or determined at this hearing. The judgment focused solely on reasonable adjustments regarding auxiliary aids.
Victimisation was referenced in the claim form in relation to a previous ET claim, but was not addressed or determined at this hearing. The judgment focused solely on reasonable adjustments.
Facts
The claimant, a disabled Investigation Officer employed by HMRC, claimed the respondent failed to provide reasonable adjustments in the form of auxiliary aids: an ergonomic chair, ergonomic mouse, two screens, and an adjustable desk. The claim period began 21 April 2022 following an occupational health report. The claimant's anticipated hip operation was repeatedly postponed. An ergonomic chair was provided on 4 July 2023, 43 days after OH recommendation. A mouse and screens were provided in December 2024. An adjustable desk was never provided, as the claimant was not a contractual homeworker under internal policy. The claimant never raised a grievance despite claiming the lack of equipment amounted to 'torture'.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. For the chair, even if substantial disadvantage existed, 43 days to provide it was reasonable. For mouse and screens, the tribunal found no substantial disadvantage as OH assessment recorded no upper limb issues, and the claimant's evidence was inconsistent and not credible. For the desk, OH did not recommend it and the claimant failed to raise the issue for 18 months, indicating no real substantial disadvantage. The tribunal was critical of the claimant's failure to use internal grievance procedures.
Practical note
Employers can defeat reasonable adjustment claims by showing they did not and could not reasonably have known of substantial disadvantage; OH reports stating no issues and employee's failure to actively raise concerns for prolonged periods are strong evidence against substantial disadvantage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3205406/2022
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Investigation Officer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No