Mr Y Saleem v North East London Foundation Trust — 2021

The claimant, Mr Y Saleem, was a Band 7 Software Database Developer with lumbar stenosis and chronic low back pain. The tribunal found the respondent had constructive knowledge of his disability by the end of March 2018, and actual knowledge by the latest 17 July 2018. It accepted that his back condition made continuous sitting painful and that the employer should have appreciated the need to make further enquiries about the long-term nature of the condition.

The tribunal upheld two reasonable-adjustment complaints. First, it found that the respondent failed to provide a specialist chair in time: the chair was requested in March 2018, the disadvantage from sitting was substantial, and the chair should reasonably have been provided by 22 May 2018, although it was not delivered until about 12 November 2018. Second, it found that when the claimant returned to work at the CEME centre in early 2019, the respondent should have offered him a desk in the finance office closer to the toilet by 1 March 2019. The tribunal held that this would have reduced the disadvantage caused by slower access to the toilet, while still allowing him to supervise his two team members.

The remaining disability discrimination claims failed. The tribunal rejected the section 15 complaint about the occupational health referral and the question of ill-health retirement, finding that the respondent was seeking advice about options rather than threatening retirement, and that there was no unfavourable treatment or detriment. It also rejected the harassment claim. Although it accepted that some comments were related to disability, it found they were few in number, made months apart, and were not sufficiently serious to violate dignity or create a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tribunal also rejected the other reasonable-adjustment allegations, including the hours and working-from-home complaints, finding either that no substantial disadvantage was proved or that the steps already taken were reasonable.

The judgment did not determine compensation. It recorded that a separate remedy hearing would follow, noted there was no loss of earnings, and said any injury to feelings award would be limited by the short periods covered by the two successful discrimination complaints. The tribunal also extended time on a just and equitable basis for the two successful reasonable-adjustment claims.