In person For the v Respondent — 2026

The respondent accepted that Ms Button was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal found that the respondent ought reasonably to have known by 14 October 2023 that she was disabled by reason of ME/CFS and was likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage by being required to work full-time.

The complaint concerning full-time working until 1 November 2023 was dismissed. Although the duty to make reasonable adjustments arose in mid-October 2023, the respondent offered Ms Button part-time working on 1 November 2023, which she accepted. The Tribunal found that this adjustment was made soon after the duty arose and that the respondent had complied with its duty.

The Tribunal accepted that requiring workplace attendance placed Ms Button at a substantial disadvantage because office working increased her risk of contracting a respiratory illness, which could have serious implications because of her disabilities. It nevertheless found that homeworking was not a reasonable adjustment. The respondent had offered a phased return, reduced days and hours, a separate ventilated office with open windows, permission to wear protective masks, equipment and posture support, and regular screen breaks. The Occupational Health report stated that mandatory homeworking was not medically necessary.

The Tribunal found that homeworking would not have been more, or significantly more, effective at avoiding the disadvantage than the separate ventilated office. It also accepted that Ms Button's sales-negotiator duties included in-person viewings, handling keys, morning meetings, maintaining awareness of sales developments and greeting walk-in clients. Homeworking would have required substantial additional travel between her home and the office. Megan Greaves was not in a comparable role because she had been engaged on a fixed-term basis principally to transfer data between IT systems, rather than as a sales negotiator.

The complaint concerning medical appointments was also dismissed. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent applied a PCP requiring employees to use annual leave rather than unpaid sick leave for medical appointments and procedures. In any event, the examples relied upon pre-dated October 2023, when the respondent ought reasonably to have known that Ms Button was disabled. The entire reasonable-adjustments claim was dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.