Case 6001223/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Chenalee Bucknall v Jet2holidays Ltd Heard: via CVP in the North East Region — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001223/2023
- Decision date
- 21 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
- Panel members
- Mrs S Dengate, Mr M Taj
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Chenalee Bucknall
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Chenalee Bucknall brought a disability discrimination claim against Jet2holidays Ltd alleging a failure to make reasonable adjustments in connection with equipment used for homeworking. The tribunal recorded that she was disabled, with achromatopsia, photophobia and nystagmus, and that the respondent knew of her disability from the start of her employment. The only claim before the tribunal was the reasonable adjustments complaint under the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant could work only with substantial magnification and that she ultimately needed assistance to connect and set up the second monitor at home. It found, however, that she had not shown a substantial disadvantage from the lack of two compatible monitors or from the absence of a desktop PC. On the evidence, she had repeatedly told managers that she was happy with the current setup and needed no support, including on the DSE assessment and in a return-to-work discussion on 20 February 2023.
The tribunal did find that the claimant was at a substantial disadvantage in relation to the lack of in-person help to set up the second monitor, because she was unable to complete that task herself. It held that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of that particular disadvantage until 20 April 2023, when the claimant first said she needed a technician to physically help her. The duty to make reasonable adjustments therefore arose on that date.
Once the duty arose, the respondent arranged for a field service engineer to attend the claimant's home on 12 May 2023 and successfully set up the equipment. The tribunal held that this was not an unreasonable delay, taking account of the respondent's attempts to resolve the issue remotely first, the limited availability of engineers, and the fact that the claimant was on full pay and not required to work while the issue was being resolved. The claim was dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held the respondent knew the claimant was disabled from the start, but did not know or reasonably need to know that she was disadvantaged by the lack of in-person assistance to set up the second monitor until 20 April 2023. The engineer visit on 12 May 2023 was within a reasonable time after that duty arose. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 paragraph 20 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Wilcox v Birmingham Cab Services Ltd
- Glasson v The Insolvency Service
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton
- Newham Sixth Form College v Sanders
- Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.