Mrs P Virdee (the claimant’s wife) For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, who had degenerative disc disease and back pain, pursued disability claims arising from the respondent’s handling of his requests to work from home and from the 5 March 2020 email moving him to stage 3 of the managing attendance process. He initially referred to harassment and indirect discrimination, but before the final hearing he said he did not intend to pursue those claims. The tribunal treated the case as one about reasonable adjustments and, at the start of the hearing, permitted him to advance a section 15 EqA 2010 claim as well, viewing it as a re-labelling of the same facts rather than a wholly new case.

On the merits, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had a legitimate aim in wanting the claimant to attend the workplace as much as possible so as to maximise the effectiveness of the project management team. It nevertheless found that the refusal to allow him to work from home on Tuesdays and Thursdays was not justified objectively and was not a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The tribunal relied on the claimant’s medical evidence, occupational health reports, and its findings that the respondent had in practice been operating a rule that staff could work from home only one day a week unless there was a short-term reason to vary that arrangement.

The tribunal found that the claimant’s claim under sections 15 and 39 succeeded. It accepted that the repeated refusals of his requests caused additional physical pain, that the 5 March 2020 email was the point at which he was threatened with dismissal, and that he had also suffered anxiety for which he had been prescribed Temazepam. It awarded £14,000 for injury to feelings and pain and suffering, together with £3,620.82 interest, making a total award of £17,620.82.

The separate reasonable-adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 was dismissed because the tribunal held it was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. In its time-limit analysis, the tribunal considered the effect of Matuszowicz, accepted that repeated refusals of working-from-home requests were individual acts, but also found that a policy restricting home working operated over a period and was in force when the 5 March 2020 email was sent. Even so, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had known of the relevant duty by July 2019 and had not brought the reasonable-adjustments claim in time.