Ms L Tait v Holiday Extras Ltd — 2026

Ms Tait, who remained employed by Holiday Extras Ltd as a home-based Travel Consultant, complained only of failures to make reasonable adjustments. It was common ground that she was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of ADHD, severe sleep apnoea, fibromyalgia, IBS, anxiety and depression, and undiagnosed autism. The Tribunal found that the respondent knew or ought to have known of disability arising from IBS from March 2023, anxiety and depression from 12 April 2023, ADHD from 3 August 2023, and autism and sleep apnoea from 12 September 2024. It had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of her fibromyalgia.

The Tribunal found that the respondent applied PCPs requiring predominantly voice work, five shifts per week on a rota, compliance with regularly changing policies and instructions, attendance at meetings or training with the camera on, and compliance with instructions from any manager. It found no requirement that calls be conducted while seated at a desk. The respondent accepted the substantial disadvantages identified in the list of issues, although the Tribunal determined separately when it knew or ought to have known about each disadvantage.

A higher proportion of chat and email shifts and the ability to switch from voice to chat or email when struggling were reasonable adjustments from August 2023. The Tribunal found that written interactions were likely to reduce the disadvantage associated with masking and that, given the number of Travel Consultants and the proportion of non-voice work, additional chat and email allocation could be accommodated while maintaining voice cover. It found no evidence that the temporary ability to switch channels had caused the serious operational difficulties later asserted by the respondent.

A compressed working week of four longer shifts and a regular rota were reasonable adjustments from 18 September 2024. The Tribunal found that these measures would assist with recuperation, transitions and rotating shifts, and that Ms Tait's sickness absence did not mean she could not benefit because the absence of adjustments was preventing her return. Modest flexibility of 15 to 20 minutes in start and finish times was also a reasonable adjustment from 12 April 2024; the Tribunal considered its likely operational effect limited given the number of staff on shift.

From August 2023, the respondent should also have provided additional help when policies, procedures or scripts changed, a modest period at the start of the working day to review changes, and a permanent single point of contact. The ability to join meetings with the camera off should have been implemented from 24 August 2023. The Tribunal found that measures provided during phased returns were temporary and inadequate to meet the need for ongoing adjustments, and that permanent solutions should have been considered in light of Ms Tait's continuing disabilities.