Case 6009955/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Raif v Waterstones Booksellers Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009955/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms P Keating, Ms D Olulode
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Raif
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs N Raif worked for Waterstones and had disclosed autism and fibromyalgia. The tribunal found the respondent knew of those conditions from October 2023 and that, when she moved into the head office Related Products role, she sought adjustments including flexibility around travel and start and finish times, a quiet space in the office, written communications, and working from home if office attendance increased. The respondent gave her flexible start and finish times, asked for instructions to be provided in writing, referred her to occupational health, and arranged a stress risk assessment and a reasonable adjustments process.
The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed. The tribunal found PCP1, a requirement to attend the office two days a week, and accepted that this could disadvantage the claimant because peak-hour travel could trigger pain and flare-ups and the office could be overstimulating. It held, however, that flexibility around travel outside rush hour was already in place from the outset, that a quiet space had been agreed subject to availability and was never requested, that PCP2 (increasing office days) was not in place during her employment, and that the respondent was not obliged to anticipate adjustments such as an ergonomic mouse or specialist software that she had not identified.
The harassment claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the 20 March 2024 meeting, the later performance feedback, the 20 May comment that she was doing 50% of the tasks, and the 22 May meeting with Gary Clark did not amount to unwanted conduct related to disability. It found no evidence that work had been withheld, no aggressive conduct by Gary Clark, and no basis for treating the performance feedback as disability-related harassment. On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had not failed to provide support, had not failed to make reasonable adjustments, and had not acted in a way calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence. Ms Raif resigned on 15 August 2024 citing breach of contract and failure to provide reasonable adjustments, but the tribunal held that her resignation did not amount to a dismissal and dismissed all claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found PCP1 but held that flexibility on travel/start and finish times was already in place, that a quiet space had been agreed subject to availability and was never requested, that PCP2 was not operating during the claimant's employment, and that other suggested adjustments were not clearly identified or required on the evidence. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found no unwanted conduct related to disability in the 20 March review, later performance feedback, the 20 May '50%' comment, or the 22 May meeting with Gary Clark. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was pleaded and analysed as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found no failure to provide support, no failure to make reasonable adjustments, no harassment, and no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, so Ms Raif's resignation did not amount to a dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Malik v BCCI [1998] AC 20
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju [2005] IRLR 35
- last straw doctrine
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.