In person For v Respondent — 2021

Ms A Curry brought a disability discrimination claim against Ocado Central Services Ltd arising from her request for a designated on-site parking space as a reasonable adjustment. Her auto-immune kidney disease was conceded as a disability. The tribunal found that the respondent had provided a disabled bay on site on 9 September 2019 on a first-come, first-served basis for blue badge holders, and had also identified alternative disabled parking outside Lookers and overflow parking some 350 yards away.

The tribunal identified the relevant provision, criterion or practice as the parking arrangements, including the limited on-site spaces. It held that Ms Curry had not shown that those arrangements placed her at a substantial comparative disadvantage because of her disability. Her evidence that walking from the overflow car park caused mobility difficulty was described as slight and insufficiently specific: the tribunal said it was unclear how often she would need to use overflow parking, the extent of any difficulty, and whether the issue arose at the start or end of shifts. It also found that, at the time, her case to the respondent was framed mainly as stress arising from uncertainty about parking, rather than a clearly communicated physical inability to walk the distance.

The tribunal further held that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that she was likely to be placed at the disadvantage later advanced at hearing. It found there was an evidential gap, especially because Ms Curry did not return the occupational health forms or engage further with the process that might have clarified the basis of the request. On that basis the disability discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal said that, if it had been wrong on the earlier issues, the respondent would have needed to consider creating a second on-site disabled space reserved for Ms Curry, because the overflow space would not have addressed the asserted disadvantage.