K Kostova v ABM Facility Services UK Ltd (sued as “ABM”) — 2026

The tribunal dismissed K Kostova's complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability against ABM Facility Services UK Limited. She worked as a Multi-Skilled Operative on its Transport for London contract from 1 February 2023 until her employment ended on 31 May 2024 following dismissal on grounds of capability due to ill health. ABM accepted that her back condition, lymphoedema and knee osteoarthritis were disabilities. The tribunal found that ABM knew or ought to have known about all three conditions, including osteoarthritis.

Ms Kostova had been absent since 29 August 2023. Occupational Health reported permanent limitations and recommended reducing the physical demands of her work, but subsequent GP fit notes continued to state that she was unfit for work. The tribunal rejected her evidence that she could have returned earlier if adjustments had been made. It found that the adjustment duty arose on 28 February 2024, when a fit note first stated that she might be fit with amended duties and altered hours. A further fit note dated 25 March 2024 again certified her as unfit.

The pleaded provision, criterion or practice was a requirement to work five days per week. The tribunal found that ABM had no such requirement in isolation, noting that some employees worked part time. Although working five days would have caused substantial disadvantage through pain, leg swelling and commuting with a suitcase, reducing Ms Kostova's days from five to three would not have enabled her to perform the MSO role. Her request also involved restricting her duties to accommodation cleaning. The tribunal acknowledged the Rentokil principle that an adjustment need not be guaranteed to work, but found that even Ms Kostova was not saying she could perform the MSO duties over three days.

The tribunal also considered other proposed adjustments, although they had not been pleaded. Accommodation cleaning at Euston and Stratford amounted to about one hour daily and could not sustain a separate post. The dedicated Fleet House role was occupied and involved duties she was unlikely to manage. Train litter picking was unsuitable in light of the physical demands and Occupational Health advice. ABM explored vacancies before dismissal and during the appeal. Its vacancy lists should have been more current, but no suitable alternative employment existed that she could perform and wished to accept. Creating a new post and finding other duties to fill it was not a reasonable adjustment in these circumstances.

Under section 15 Equality Act 2010, the allegation concerning alternative employment failed because the absence of an offer resulted from the lack of suitable vacancies, rather than her sickness absence or inability to perform her existing role. Dismissal was unfavourable treatment arising from disability: she had been absent for a lengthy period, could not perform her MSO duties and had no realistic prospect of returning in the near future.