Claimant v Secretary of State for Defence
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not placed at a substantial disadvantage by the absence of a rise and fall desk or trolley. The trolley was not required as the claimant was not mobile, had lockable storage at Waddington, and acquired her own trolley by mid-September 2023. The rise and fall desk had been provided originally because it was larger, not because it was adjustable, and the claimant never raised any issue about its absence despite opportunities to do so, including at a meeting on 14 November 2023 with her staff representative. The tribunal concluded there was no evidence the lack of these auxiliary aids caused substantial disadvantage.
Facts
The claimant, a physiotherapist employed since 2004, suffered from endometriosis and complications from a hysterectomy. When temporarily relocated from RAF Cranwell to RAF Waddington in October 2023, her rise and fall desk was not transferred. Occupational Health had recommended a trolley for carrying her laptop, but the claimant sourced her own by mid-September 2023. She claimed the respondent failed to provide these auxiliary aids as reasonable adjustments. She never raised concerns about the missing desk or trolley during the relevant period, despite opportunities to do so, including at a meeting with her staff representative in November 2023.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed the claim. It found the claimant had not established substantial disadvantage from the absence of the trolley (which she obtained herself and did not need as she was not mobile and had lockable storage) or the desk (which had been provided originally for its size, not its adjustability, and whose absence she never complained about). The tribunal emphasized that as a professional physiotherapist, she could and should have raised these issues at the time if they were causing difficulty.
Practical note
A disabled employee must demonstrate actual substantial disadvantage from the absence of auxiliary aids, not merely that the aids were recommended or previously provided, and a failure to raise concerns about missing adjustments during the relevant period may undermine a claim.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2600319/2024
- Decision date
- 6 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- military
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Physiotherapist Specialist
- Service
- 21 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister