Claimant v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Tribunal found that the respondent's decision to move the claimant from the Disability Employment Adviser role to a Decision Maker role in December 2022 was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability (her inability to work in the office). However, the respondent proved that the removal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (providing an effective service to customers, protecting public funds and ensuring the efficient running of the department). The claimant could only perform one day per week of DEA work remotely and her absence on site negatively impacted colleagues. The respondent offered her an alternative role on the same pay and grade with full homeworking and all adjustments in place, which was a reasonable response.

Tribunal accepted that respondent applied a PCP (requiring the Disability Employment Adviser job to be entirely or mainly office based) that put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. However, the Tribunal concluded none of the steps proposed by the claimant were reasonable adjustments. The DEA role had a significant reactive element requiring on-site face-to-face support which could not be carried out remotely. There was insufficient remote work to fill the claimant's contracted hours (only one day per week). Allowing full homeworking would have placed additional pressure on the other two DEAs who would have had to cover all face-to-face and reactive duties. The respondent had already provided considerable flexibility including a project role and reduced caseload but ultimately could not accommodate full homeworking in the DEA role as it existed. The respondent sourced a suitable alternative role with full homeworking which was a proportionate response.