Claimant v Schaeffler (UK) Ltd

The tribunal found that suggesting to the claimant that she work against Occupational Health advice constituted discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA). The unfavourable treatment was because of her inability to work a two-shift pattern, which arose from her disabilities. The treatment was not justified as it was not necessary to achieve the respondent's legitimate aims.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to make the reasonable adjustment of allowing the claimant to work only morning shifts. The requirement to work a two-shift pattern placed the claimant at substantial disadvantage. The adjustment was reasonable because four part-time workers were permitted to work mornings only without contractual entitlement, and the respondent failed to prove that allowing the claimant the same arrangement would impose unreasonable costs.

The tribunal found that while some conduct was unwanted (insisting on a flexible working request), it was not 'related to disability' in the manner required by s.26 EqA. The claimant's disability was merely the background context rather than the conduct being sufficiently connected to the disability. The alleged threat of dismissal also failed on the facts as no threat had been made.

The allegation that the claimant was threatened with dismissal on 11 June 2024 failed on the facts. The tribunal found she was informed of dismissal as a possible outcome in response to her direct question, which was reasonable and not a threat.