Ms D McDougall Mr S Singh Mr D Murphy v City Facilities Management (UK) Ltd — 2026

Mr Murphy had rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, which the respondent accepted together amounted to a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent introduced a requirement for full-time head-office employees to work in the office four days out of five. Mr Murphy requested a four-day working week comprising two office days and two home-working days. Following an initial refusal and an appeal, he agreed to work four days per week, ordinarily including three office days and one home-working day, with each Thursday off and a further office day in each fourth week after an initial three-month period.

For indirect discrimination, the tribunal found that the office-attendance requirement put people sharing Mr Murphy's combination of conditions at a particular disadvantage and put him personally at that disadvantage through increased pain, fatigue and mobility difficulties. It nevertheless accepted the respondent's legitimate aim of ensuring effective and timely collaboration and team management so that deadlines and customer demands were met. The requirement was found proportionate, having regard to the flexibility over home-working days and working hours, the availability of breaks and private space for exercises, and the reduced office attendance agreed for Mr Murphy. The indirect discrimination complaint was therefore dismissed.

For reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the requirement placed Mr Murphy at a substantial disadvantage and that the respondent knew, or ought to have known, both of his disability and that disadvantage. It considered the occupational-health report's treatment of office attendance too narrow and found that further discussion should have occurred. However, the respondent had made or offered adjustments including a four-day week, flexibility over his non-working and home-working days, flexible start and finish times, additional breaks, private space for exercises, specialist equipment if required, and assistance through Access to Work. In that context, and taking account of his senior role and the respondent's aim of increasing in-person working, permitting only two office days per week was not objectively reasonable. That complaint was dismissed.

The tribunal found that, apart from its duration, the flexible-working process was reasonable. The late return of meeting notes caused no prejudice, the appeal remedied errors in the initial process, the refusal grounds were permissible, and the decision was not materially based on incorrect facts. The appeal outcome was nevertheless delivered after the statutory two-month decision period, and no extension had been discussed or agreed. The respondent therefore failed to comply with section 80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal awarded £2,038, equivalent to four weeks' pay, for the failure to comply with the statutory flexible-working requirements. It considered that the breach was not minor but was not grossly excessive in its delay and had caused little prejudice. It declined to order reconsideration of the request because a permissible outcome had ultimately been reached and repeating the process would serve no purpose.