Christopher Pugh v Swindon Borough Council — 2025

Christopher Pugh brought a claim for discrimination arising from disability against Swindon Borough Council under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal accepted that he was disabled by symptoms similar to Epstein-Barr virus, including chronic fatigue, and that the Council knew of that disability. It also accepted that he was treated unfavourably by being managed under the absence policy and dismissed, with the sickness absence arising in consequence of his disability.

The Tribunal found that the Council had legitimate aims in managing absence, requiring staff to perform the work for which they were employed, encouraging attendance, supporting the team, and maintaining customer service in a busy public-facing contact centre. It accepted that the Claimant worked in a small team serving vulnerable and sometimes urgent public enquiries, and that prolonged absence of an experienced member of staff had a material impact on colleagues and service delivery. The Tribunal also accepted evidence that home-working during the relevant period caused significant technical and telephony problems, which affected customer service and could not be monitored or recorded in the same way as office working.

The central issue was whether dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving those aims, including whether a less discriminatory step, such as full-time home working, would have improved the Claimant's attendance enough to keep his employment sustainable. The Tribunal considered the occupational health reports, which often recommended home working, but found on the balance of probabilities that working from home five days a week would not have alleviated the disadvantage sufficiently. It found that the Claimant had still suffered substantial sickness absence when working from home full time earlier in 2022, and that his condition involved unpredictable flare-ups that would remain whether he worked at home or not.

The Tribunal therefore held that the application of the absence management policy and the dismissal were justified and proportionate. It also found that ill-health retirement was not a realistic option on the evidence, and that redeployment was not a viable alternative because of the Claimant's condition and difficulty moving successfully to a new role. The discrimination arising from disability claim was dismissed, and the Tribunal said the provisional remedy hearing would not go ahead.