Ms J Fergusson v Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service — 2026

The claimant, a Sheriff Clerk Depute at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court, was accepted by the respondent to be disabled for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of stage 3b kidney disease and related bladder symptoms. She sought a permanent flexible working arrangement of two days each week working from home. The respondent refused that permanent change, but put in place one working-from-home day each week and a second day when operationally feasible. The tribunal dismissed the flexible working complaint overall. It found the respondent had discussed and carefully considered the request, relied on statutory business grounds, and did not reject it on incorrect facts. It found the respondent had not completed the flexible working process within the two-month decision period, but treated the breach as technical, with little impact because the claimant had been allowed to work from home two days per week while the request was considered, and made no compensation award.

The reasonable adjustments complaint was dismissed. The tribunal found that the relevant practice was the requirement for the claimant to be physically present in the office four days each week unless the respondent exercised discretion to allow a second home-working day. It found the claimant had not shown that this placed her at a substantial disadvantage, noting the limited evidence about the disadvantage of one rather than two home-working days and that the second day had been granted more often than not in the period considered. In any event, it held that a permanent two-day home-working arrangement was not a reasonable adjustment because it would restrict the respondent's ability to cover courts, supervise administrative officers, support public counter work, and respond to sickness, annual leave, training and court scheduling needs.

The indirect disability discrimination claim was dismissed because the pleaded PCPs had not been applied to the claimant: five-day office attendance had been adjusted, rotation to criminal work had been put on hold pending the proceedings, and the Movement and Mobility policy had not been applied. The tribunal also stated that, if necessary, it would have dismissed the claim because the claimant had provided no evidence of group disadvantage for people with kidney disease. The discrimination arising from disability claim was dismissed because, although refusal of the flexible working request was unfavourable treatment, the tribunal found the refusal was for operational and business reasons and was not because of fatigue, impaired concentration or another matter arising in consequence of disability.

The harassment complaint about having to request comfort breaks from sheriffs was dismissed. The tribunal found there was unwanted conduct because the claimant found the requirement embarrassing, but it did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating a humiliating environment. It relied on the fact that all court users require permission to leave court, resident sheriffs were aware of the claimant's condition and need for breaks, and measures had been put in place to assist the claimant. A separate harassment complaint against Mr Vickers was withdrawn after his evidence.