Mrs S Othman v First Greater Western Limited — 2026

Mrs Othman worked as a Crew Delivery Manager in a 24-hour rostering operation. First Greater Western Ltd conceded that her Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was a disability. Her race discrimination complaint was withdrawn and consequently dismissed. The remaining complaints of disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation, unfair dismissal, contractual dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages were dismissed.

The reasonable-adjustment case concerned the requirement for Crew Delivery Managers to work a seven-week pattern containing early, late, long and night shifts. Medical advice recommended against night and long shifts, while Mrs Othman sought to retain full-time hours and pay under a personalised pattern. The Tribunal accepted that multiple managers had considered possible adjustments and found that the proposed patterns left operationally significant gaps, particularly during Thursday-to-Saturday nights, would have affected colleagues or required additional expenditure, and did not accord with the medical restrictions. The proposed permanent roster changes, scheduled breaks, unspecified alternative duties and other identified measures were therefore not reasonable adjustments capable of removing the disadvantage. The Tribunal also found that the respondent had repeatedly sought to explore redeployment.

Several allegations concerning events before 30 May 2023 were out of time. The Tribunal found that they were not part of continuing discriminatory conduct and that no basis had been shown for a just and equitable extension. On discrimination arising from disability, it accepted that placement on sick leave in April 2023 and the eventual dismissal were adverse consequences arising from disability, but found both justified by the identified health, safety, staffing and operational aims. The proposed return arrangements were not practically feasible, and by late 2024 Mrs Othman had been absent for approximately 20 months and her medical position had deteriorated. The direct discrimination complaints also failed because the treatment was not shown to have been less favourable because of disability, and the four proposed comparators were not in materially similar circumstances.

The harassment complaints failed because the relevant factual allegations were rejected, were not related to disability, or could not objectively have produced the prohibited effect. In particular, communications seeking discussion of redeployment were treated as ordinary attempts to secure a return to work rather than harassment. For victimisation, the grievance of 18 June 2023 and email of 4 April 2023 were not protected acts because they did not allege disability discrimination or an Equality Act breach. Although other protected acts were conceded, the Tribunal found that they had not caused the system-access decisions, redeployment efforts, dismissal or other alleged detriments.