Ms M S Bonciog v Pets at Home Limited — 2026

The tribunal upheld Ms Mihaela Bonciog’s complaints that Pets At Home Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments for her herniated disc and urinary incontinence. Her direct disability discrimination complaint failed. Both conditions were recognised as disabilities during the material period, 2 November 2023 to 29 March 2024. A preliminary hearing had found that she was not disabled in relation to stress.

The tribunal found that the respondent failed to arrange a welfare meeting following receipt of the occupational health report on 3 November 2023. This was a detriment because it delayed reasonable adjustments. However, the tribunal attributed the failure to poor internal communication, rather than disability. It accepted that colleagues invited to welfare meetings in February and March 2024 were in a different position because they lacked recent medical evidence, while the claimant already had a recent occupational health report. Her return-to-work meeting on 29 December 2023 did not amount to a meaningful follow-up to that report.

The training allegations failed because the tribunal found that the reasons concerned the claimant’s working hours and the allocation of tasks, rather than disability. She worked eight hours a week, from 6pm to 10pm on Mondays and Fridays. Email orders, stock replenishment and first subscription orders were morning tasks; deliveries took place on Tuesdays and Thursdays; customer service operated from 9am to 5pm; and returns were handled by non-SQP staff at a lower cost. Automation training was withheld because the respondent considered it unsuitable for her shift pattern. The tribunal found that allowing her to complete that training over a longer period or through overtime would have been reasonable, but that a comparator without her disabilities on a similar shift pattern would also have been refused training.

The performance-review allegation failed because no employees in the SQP division had received performance reviews from 2020 onwards. The Your Voice survey allegation also failed. The claimant was asked to return later because the department was busy, and another manager helped her complete the survey during the same shift. The tribunal found that this was not reasonably perceived as a detriment and that a comparator without her disabilities would have been treated in the same way.

For toilet access, the respondent accepted that requiring the claimant to use a toilet three flights of stairs away placed her at a substantial disadvantage through the risk of an incontinence accident. It knew of her condition and that disadvantage from 3 November 2023. Although access to all doors was enabled on 7 November 2023, the claimant was not told until 17 May 2024. The tribunal upheld the failure to make this adjustment from 7 November 2023 to 29 March 2024, the date she submitted her claim.

For the ergonomic chair, the tribunal found that a workstation assessment could have been completed by 13 November 2023 and a suitable chair ordered and received within two weeks. The duty was therefore breached from 27 November 2023, earlier than the 12 January 2024 date conceded by the respondent in closing submissions. The period determined in these proceedings ended on 29 March 2024. The assessment eventually took place on 17 May 2024, and the chair arrived on or around 25 May 2024.