Mrs L Stevens v Department for Work and Pensions — 2025

The claimant, a Disability Employment Adviser, was disabled and the respondent knew of her disability at all relevant times. The respondent accepted that requiring the DEA role to be entirely or mainly office based was a PCP that placed her at a substantial disadvantage. The tribunal found that the DEA role had reverted after pandemic restrictions to a largely face-to-face and reactive role, with ad hoc support to Work Coaches and customers in Job Centres, and that only limited parts of the role could be performed remotely.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal considered proposed steps including permanent or mainly home working, autonomy or flexibility over office attendance, job carving, allocating remote customers, removing desk rota requirements, and arranging virtual or co-coaching meetings. It found that permanent home working or creating a substantially remote DEA role was not objectively reasonable because it would not meet the requirements of the role as the respondent reasonably required it to be performed, there was insufficient remote DEA work to fill the claimant's hours, and the arrangement affected the workload of other DEAs. Some steps had been taken, such as informing colleagues of the claimant's availability and arranging weekly meetings, while others would not have removed the disadvantage.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal found that removing the claimant from the DEA role and moving her to a Decision Maker role was unfavourable treatment because of matters arising from disability. It accepted the respondent's aims of providing an effective service to customers, protecting public funds, and ensuring efficient running of the department as legitimate. The tribunal concluded that moving the claimant to a role on the same pay, grade and conditions which could be performed from home with adjustments in place was proportionate, and that no less discriminatory step was available at that stage.