Claimant v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent applied PCPs (requirement to work 37 hours per week full-time, requirement to work at the office after a 6-week phasing-in period, and requirement to work in the office regardless of symptom fluctuations) which placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled employees due to excessive fatigue, pain on commuting, and frequent medical appointments. The respondent knew or ought to have known of this disadvantage. The tribunal concluded that reasonable adjustments including reduced hours/job-share, a longer phased return, permission to work from home on bad symptom days, provision of ergonomic equipment, homeworking equipment, and progressing an Access to Work application were not made when they should have been from 23 October 2023 onwards. The respondent's rationale for not making adjustments (believing the claimant wanted to work solely from home, concerns about job-share practicability, and reluctance to set a precedent) were found to be unreasonable and not supported by objective evidence.
Withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on withdrawal.
Holiday pay claim withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on withdrawal.
Facts
The claimant, employed as a Band 3 Administration Pathway Assistant since June 2019, developed Sarcoidosis in March 2022 and was off sick for nearly 18 months. In October 2023, Occupational Health assessed her as fit to return to work with adjustments including a phased return, part-time hours, remote working, Access to Work for commute assistance, and ergonomic equipment. The respondent instead placed her on the redeployment register, believing (incorrectly) that she wanted to work solely from home and that the full-time role could not be done part-time or as a job-share. No suitable redeployment role was found. The claimant's appeal against redeployment was successful in June 2024, and she returned to her original role in August 2024, but adjustments were still not fully implemented at the time of the liability hearing.
Decision
The tribunal found the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments from 23 October 2023 onwards. The respondent's PCPs (full-time hours, office working after phasing-in, and requirement to work in office regardless of symptom fluctuations) placed the claimant at substantial disadvantage due to excessive fatigue, pain from commuting, and medical appointments. The tribunal concluded that adjustments including reduced hours/job-share, longer phased return, ability to work from home when symptoms bad, ergonomic and homeworking equipment, and progressing Access to Work were reasonable and should have been made but were not. The respondent's rationale for refusing adjustments (misunderstanding about working from home, concerns about job-share practicability, not wanting to set a precedent) were found to be unreasonable and not objectively supported.
Practical note
Employers must objectively consider and trial Occupational Health recommended adjustments before concluding they are impracticable; assuming a disabled employee wants to work solely from home when they have consistently said otherwise, and rejecting job-shares or part-time working based on hypothetical concerns without objective evidence, will likely amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Award breakdown
Vento band: middle
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2200163/2024
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Administration Pathway Assistant
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No