Claimant v Financial Ombudsman Service Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof that he was placed at a substantial disadvantage by the alleged lack of auxiliary aids. The claimant did not give evidence explaining how each auxiliary aid would have alleviated disadvantage or how the lack of them caused difficulty with time management or document organisation. The tribunal also found all required ADHD coaching sessions were provided and more would have been given if requested.
The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because he failed to report his Second Period of Absence to the respondent, not because of the absence itself. The claimant's own evidence was that his failure to report was because he was 'burnt out, lacked energy, was fatigued', which the claimant did not say arose in consequence of his ADHD. Therefore, the reason for dismissal did not arise in consequence of the claimant's disability.
Facts
The claimant, who had ADHD, was employed as a remote investigator by the Financial Ombudsman Service from November 2023 to September 2024. He was dismissed during his extended probation period for unauthorised absence. The claimant alleged the respondent failed to provide various auxiliary aids (standing desk, noise-cancelling headphones, software, etc.) that would help with time management and document organisation, and that his dismissal discriminated against him due to disability. The respondent had provided 8 ADHD coaching sessions and various adjustments, and offered more support if requested. The claimant was absent without leave on two occasions, failing to report his absence as required by policy.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. On reasonable adjustments, the claimant failed to prove he was placed at substantial disadvantage by lack of auxiliary aids or that further ADHD coaching would have removed any disadvantage. The tribunal found all required adjustments had been made and the claimant himself had said in May 2024 that all adjustments were in place. On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for failing to report his absence, not because of the absence itself, and the claimant's own evidence was that his failure to report was due to being burnt out rather than his ADHD.
Practical note
Claimants must provide clear evidence linking alleged failures to provide adjustments to specific substantial disadvantages arising from their disability; merely requesting aids recommended by Access to Work is insufficient without explaining how they would alleviate disability-related disadvantage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2501862/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Investigator
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No