Ms Tamzin Beach v Wernick Buildings Limited — 2026

The Tribunal treated the Respondent's management responses to the Claimant's disability from January 2025 as an ongoing state of affairs and conduct extending over a period for the purposes of s.123 Equality Act 2010. The Respondent accepted that Ms Beach was disabled by fibromyalgia and anxiety. The Tribunal found that the Respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of the fibromyalgia disability by January 2025 and of the anxiety disability upon receipt of the GP letter dated 4 December 2025.

The direct disability discrimination complaint was dismissed. Mr Rhoden had said that he would telephone Ms Beach and made one unsuccessful attempt using an outdated number, but the Tribunal was not satisfied that he would have made further attempts for a non-disabled employee. It also found that the limited contact resulted from uncertainty about how to progress matters, the fit notes stating that Ms Beach was unfit for work without identifying adjustments, her statement that she was not then able to discuss a return, and caution following earlier interactions, rather than from her disability.

The disability-related harassment complaints concerning the meeting on 11 February 2025 were dismissed. Mr Varvara referred to overcoming depression and requested medical evidence, but the Tribunal found that the comments were not made in a pejorative or dismissive sense and did not have the statutory purpose or effect. It did not find that Mr Rhoden used the alleged phrase about an "easy day"; his comments concerned the availability of suitable work, operational constraints and whether a physically demanding role was compatible with Ms Beach's symptoms. Although she was upset after the meeting, the Tribunal found that this resulted from frustration that her proposed adjustments had not been accepted and did not satisfy the harassment test.

The Tribunal found that the lack of meaningful engagement with Ms Beach between April and July 2025 created an environment that violated her dignity and caused isolation, uncertainty and distress, and that it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. Nevertheless, this harassment complaint was dismissed because the lack of engagement was not related to disability. It resulted from Mr Rhoden's view that no reasonable changes could be made, uncertainty about how matters could progress and caution arising from earlier interactions; administrative emails about pay and holiday continued to receive responses.

For the reasonable-adjustments claim, the Tribunal identified a provision, criterion or practice requiring employees to perform their substantive duties, with variations made only by agreement. The physically demanding production-operative role placed Ms Beach at a substantial disadvantage through pain, fatigue, flare-ups, deterioration in physical health, psychological distress and inability to return without adjustments. Temporary lighter duties and breaks had been introduced, but they were informal and lacked a structured or documented plan. The Tribunal found that rejecting redeployment in February 2025 was not unreasonable because the diagnosis was recent, temporary adjustments had only recently begun and detailed medical guidance was unavailable.