Cases2216776/2023

Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

5 February 2025Before Employment Judge GoodmanLondon Centralhybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

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

Tribunal found claimant was disabled (chronic cluster headaches) from 30 June 2023. However, alleged unfavourable treatment (being made to feel guilty, career development failures, delays in implementing adjustments, withholding disability leave, failing to maintain welfare contact) either did not occur or was not because of absence from work arising from disability. Respondent had legitimate operational reasons for decisions.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

Tribunal found claimant failed to articulate a clear plan for working from home. His role as delivery manager required on-site presence for security and operational reasons. When working from home he had insufficient work to do and failed to keep timesheets. Respondent did make adjustments: provided a private room for oxygen use, offered to move his desk to avoid bright lighting. Working from home was not a reasonable adjustment for his senior management role. Screen software was provided but claimant did not come to work to download it.

Victimisation(disability)failed

Claimant alleged detriments following his grievance of 27 October 2023 alleging discrimination. Tribunal found that all alleged detriments (comments from managers, refusal of disability leave, refusal to provide meeting recording, forthright comments by grievance investigator Dee Kavanagh, referral for disciplinary action) were not because of the protected act. They were either policy statements, factual observations about operational requirements, or based on concerns about timekeeping and failure to complete flexi-sheets discovered during grievance investigation.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

Claimant was not paid in September 2023 (£1183.87 deducted). The money was restored in October without explanation. Tribunal concluded most likely explanation was administrative error due to return-to-work meeting not occurring until 21 September (after payroll cut-off), causing system to incorrectly calculate sick pay entitlement. There was no instruction from the manager not to pay him. It was not an unlawful deduction but a payroll system error that was corrected.

Facts

Claimant worked as delivery manager at Westminster Magistrates Court from September 2021. He suffered from chronic cluster headaches diagnosed June 2023, causing unpredictable severe headaches and eye pain. He had extensive sickness absence (103 days in first two years) and frequently requested to work from home, which his manager initially permitted but later withdrew. He also regularly arrived late, left early, and did not complete mandatory flexi-timesheets despite requests. In September 2023 after return from sick leave, his manager refused further home working and invited him to formal absence review meeting. Claimant raised grievance alleging disability discrimination in October 2023. Grievance investigator recommended disciplinary action for timekeeping failures. Claimant resigned October 2024 and brought claims of disability discrimination, failure to adjust, victimisation and unlawful wage deduction.

Decision

Tribunal accepted claimant was disabled from June 2023 but dismissed all claims. Working from home was not a reasonable adjustment for a senior manager role requiring on-site presence for security and operational needs. Claimant had insufficient work to do from home and failed to keep required timesheets. Alleged victimisation (comments from managers, refusal of disability leave, referral for disciplinary action) was not because of protected act but due to operational requirements and legitimate concerns about timekeeping discovered during grievance investigation. September 2023 non-payment was administrative/payroll system error, corrected in October, not unlawful deduction.

Practical note

Employers can refuse home working as a reasonable adjustment where the role genuinely requires on-site presence for operational reasons, especially for senior management positions with security and supervisory responsibilities, even for disabled employees with fluctuating conditions.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.6Employment Rights Act 1996Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.20Equality Act 2010 s.27

Case details

Case number
2216776/2023
Decision date
5 February 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
central government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Delivery Manager
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No