Ms Miriam Rehman v Department for Work and Pensions — 2021

The respondent conceded that the claimant was disabled by reason of physical impairments connected with leg fractures and/or knee meniscus tears, meningioma tumours causing seizures, blackouts and headaches, and anxiety and depression. The tribunal found that the respondent knew or ought to have known of the claimant's impairments and had jurisdiction because the complaints formed part of a continuing act concerning the same underlying issue of reasonable adjustments after her return to work in January 2018.

The reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded in part. The tribunal found that, when the claimant returned from sickness absence on 8 January 2018, her adapted chair was no longer available and she was required to use ordinary office chairs. This placed her at a substantial disadvantage because of her balance issues and pain, and the respondent knew of that disadvantage. The tribunal found that the respondent should have provided a specially adapted chair sooner and/or allowed paid special leave while the chair issue was resolved. The tribunal did not uphold the adjustment complaint concerning the printer or alleged chair features such as tilt, cushioning or neck support.

The harassment complaint was dismissed. The tribunal found that some matters, including dismissal of the grievance appeal and use of the attendance management procedure, were unwanted and related to disability, but they were not done with the required purpose and did not reasonably have the required effect under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also dismissed the discrimination arising from disability complaint, finding that attendance management was applied because of sickness absence, but was not unfavourable treatment and was proportionate to the legitimate aim of managing absence and supporting attendance.

The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a remedy for the successful reasonable adjustments complaint, but no remedy was decided in this judgment. The claimant was ordered to provide a revised schedule of loss and the respondent a counter-schedule, with the tribunal to list a separate remedy hearing.