Mrs D Flynn v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust — 2026

Mrs D Flynn brought complaints arising from her employment as a medical secretary with East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust. The Trust accepted that her visual impairment amounted to a disability and that it knew of her disability throughout the relevant period. Her employment began on 11 October 2021, but surgery following a brain aneurysm delayed her start at work until 1 September 2022. She withdrew all direct and indirect disability discrimination and victimisation complaints, together with specified discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustment and harassment complaints. All remaining complaints were dismissed.

The tribunal found one section 15 complaint well-founded on its merits. On 23 September 2022, Rachael Hurst criticised Mrs Flynn's working speed, which was affected by her disability. Fair and effective management of capability was a legitimate aim, but the remarks were not a proportionate means of achieving it. The complaint was nevertheless dismissed because it was nearly six months out of time. Mrs Flynn filed her claim on 11 August 2023. Taking account of the limited explanation for delay, her union representation from at least October 2022 and the effect of delay on evidence about brief oral exchanges, the tribunal declined a just and equitable extension under section 123.

For reasonable adjustments, the Trust accepted that the requirement to perform ordinary medical secretary duties with the equipment provided placed Mrs Flynn at a substantial disadvantage when reading documents. The tribunal held that Access to Work recommendations were relevant advice rather than mandatory requirements. Applying Linsley, it found that Windows and Microsoft accessibility features were reasonable alternatives to Dolphin screen-reading and magnification software. Dragon dictation software, its associated headset and training would not address the pleaded disadvantage in reading documents. The OrCam reading device and its training were provided without unreasonable delay; Mrs Flynn's annual leave accounted for the main delay between March and April 2023.

The delay in coping strategy training did not breach the adjustment duty. Until July 2023, both parties expected that training to take place when Mrs Flynn returned to work, and the Trust could reasonably prioritise equipment that addressed her reading difficulties more directly. Visual impairment awareness training was not shown to address the pleaded reading disadvantage. Following Tarbuck, the tribunal held that carrying out a workstation assessment was not itself a reasonable adjustment. It also rejected the argument that the internal appeal outcome and the later decision to order all recommended equipment amounted to an admission that every Access to Work recommendation was a reasonable adjustment.

The home-working complaint failed because the pleaded travel disadvantages were not established. There was insufficient evidence of disorientation and excessive anxiety when travelling by car, and the Trust had not been told of that alleged disadvantage. Mrs Flynn was neither required nor expected to use public transport; Access to Work taxi funding was available and could cover additional attendance days. In any event, the Trust had agreed her requested pattern of predominantly home working. The tribunal found the conditions requiring sufficient training and limited additional attendance for service needs reasonable. Calling the arrangement flexible working rather than a reasonable adjustment did not establish a failure to make the adjustment.