Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the Respondent required the Claimant to attend the office full-time (or 4 days/week) between 22 November 2021 and 18 February 2022, which placed her at a substantial disadvantage given her immunosuppression, long Covid symptoms requiring recovery time, and greater risk of further absence. The Respondent's refusal to permit 2 days home working was unreasonable, as it had been permitted previously, she could perform most tasks remotely, and residual training needs could be met during office days. The Claimant had worked this pattern successfully from April 2021, and no operational evidence supported the change.
The tribunal found that requiring the Claimant to attend attendance management meetings on 3 and 18 February 2022 was unfavourable treatment. These meetings arose in consequence of her absence from 17 January 2022, which itself arose from the Respondent's refusal to permit home working in line with GP and OH advice given because of her disability. The meetings were not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, as putting in place the reasonable adjustment of 2 days home working would have been more effective, less discriminatory, and would have enabled the Claimant to work rather than remain absent.
Facts
The Claimant was employed as an Administration Officer at Lavender Hill Magistrates Court from November 2019. She suffered from psoriatic arthritis, stress/depression and long Covid. She was immunosuppressed due to her arthritis medication. From April 2021 she worked 3 days in office and 2 days at home. In November 2021, following sick leave with a respiratory infection which her GP attributed to long Covid, her team leader Mr Bah required her to work full-time in the office, citing incomplete training. Occupational health recommended full-time home working for 3 months in January 2022. The Respondent refused, initially offering only 1 day at home, then refusing to allow home working at all unless the Claimant accepted a different role. The Claimant was absent from 17 January 2022 and was required to attend attendance management meetings on 3 and 18 February 2022. She eventually returned on 2 days home working from 9 March 2022.
Decision
The tribunal found that the requirement to attend the office full-time or 4 days per week between November 2021 and February 2022 was a PCP which placed the Claimant at substantial disadvantage, as it increased her exposure to infectious diseases and prevented recovery time, increasing absence risk. The Respondent failed to make the reasonable adjustment of 2 days home working, which had worked successfully before and after this period. The tribunal also found that requiring attendance at meetings on 3 and 18 February 2022 was unfavourable treatment arising from disability, which was not justified. The Claimant was awarded £11,000 for injury to feelings plus interest.
Practical note
Where an employee with multiple disabilities including immunosuppression has successfully worked a hybrid pattern, removing that arrangement without evidence of operational need or proper assessment of training requirements will likely breach the duty to make reasonable adjustments, particularly where occupational health supports home working and the employer's own witness accepts the adjustment could have been maintained.
Award breakdown
Vento band: middle
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2302035/2022
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Administration Officer
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister