Mrs N Jones v Next Retail Limited T/A Next Online — 2019

Mrs N Jones worked for Next Retail Limited t/a Next Online as a Credit Adviser from 24 September 2018 until she resigned on 1 March 2019. It was not disputed that she had type one diabetes and was disabled for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that the Respondent knew of her condition from the start of employment, sought medical information from her GP, and in practice made a number of adjustments, including allowing food to be kept at her desk in a limited form, changing break times, allowing extra breaks when needed, and offering a private room in which she could test her blood sugars.

On the claim of discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that the relevant disability-related needs were a need to eat if she felt a hypo coming on, a need to take medication, a need to test blood sugars, and a need for adjustments to working arrangements. It rejected the allegation that she had been unfavourably treated by being challenged or reprimanded for eating at her desk or for taking breaks outside her allotted time. The tribunal found that managers only questioned her when she went beyond the agreed adjustment, for example by eating items such as a sandwich, crisps, or cakes at her desk, and that this was a reasonable response to the general no-food policy. It also found that the one break-related conversation on 28 November 2018 was about taking a break late and not informing the duty desk, not about administering medication or testing blood sugars.

On the indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustments claims, the tribunal accepted that the Respondent had policies about no food at desks and set breaks, but found that those policies were applied with adjustments for Mrs Jones. It found that she was not forced to use her break times to administer insulin or test blood sugars, that she could test her blood sugars when required, and that she was provided with a safe and private place to do so when she asked. The tribunal further found that her sickness absence in December 2018 was attributable to pneumonia and swine flu, not to a hypoglycaemic episode, and that her health had not suffered detriment because of the policies as applied. All disability discrimination claims were therefore dismissed.