Mr M Sanders v West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority — 2025

The hearing dealt with the claimant’s disability reasonable adjustments and disability harassment claims. The Tribunal found that Mr Sanders was disabled for Equality Act purposes by dyslexia, dyspraxia and attention deficit disorder traits, and that the respondent knew of that disability from the Kade report of 11 May 2023. It also noted a separate unfair dismissal claim that was not consolidated and was due to be heard later.

On reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal accepted that the respondent had a PCP requiring office-based administrative work, but rejected the alleged PCPs of rigid 9am to 5pm hours and of not allowing time to prepare for community work or write notes. It found that office background noise could put Mr Sanders at a substantial disadvantage, but held that home working was not a reasonable step because the office was not significantly noisy, quieter rooms were available, the Kade report did not recommend home working, and the role required attendance in the office. The Tribunal also found that the respondent provided or made available the other measures identified in the Kade and Access to Work reports, including TextHelp, clear written information, a digital voice recorder, and later noise cancelling headphones and Grammarly, and that the timing of implementation was reasonable in the circumstances.

On harassment, the Tribunal accepted that in the 11 October 2023 meeting Mr Daly and Ms Wagner made comments including references to "buzz words", "hiding" behind disability, an "agenda", "looking for loopholes", and a comment about disability and working 9 to 5, and it accepted that these comments were unwanted and related to disability. However, it found that the comments were made in the context of a discussion about working arrangements and the stress risk assessment, not with the purpose of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment. Having considered the whole meeting and the surrounding context, the Tribunal concluded that the conduct was not harassment within section 26 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed the claim.