Reasonable adjustment: “I can only work at home!”

Reasonable adjustments

Where an employee’s medical condition is protected by the Disability Discrimination Acts, i.e. it either will, or is anticipated to, last in excess of twelve months, their employer has a legal duty to investigate any reasonable adjustments that could be made to help them undertake their role. Where possible, this should be done in consultation with the employee and, if appropriate, their medical practitioner, as they will be best placed to advise on the impact of their condition.

No single rule. It’s not only those with physical disabilities who are protected by the legislation. Conditions such as diabetes and certain cancers can also qualify. Equally, it can apply to some mental health illness.

Home is the only option

Suppose that during discussions about reasonable adjustments an employee tells you that the nature of their condition means that they can only work from home - nothing else will do. Would you have no option but to agree to this? This very issue was considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the recent case of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Wilson 2010.

Get me out of here

Wilson (W) suffers with severe agoraphobia and panic attacks and, as a result, has difficultly working face-to-face with the public. She was employed as an administrator by JobCentre Plus (JCP) in its offices that were located only 90 metres from her home. However, W’s own room was situated away from the main areas so that her contact with other people was limited. When W’s role came to an end JCP looked to redeploy her, but this meant a relocation where her travel to work would be increased.

I’m off home

JCP accepted W was disabled and that it would have to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate any move. But she insisted that the only workable solution was a permanent homeworking arrangement and refused to consider any other options. JCP tried to meet this request but it had no roles that could be worked in that way. So W was dismissed, whereupon she mounted a claim for disability discrimination.

Winner and a loser

At first, the tribunal found in her favour. But JCP appealed to the EAT which overturned that decision and said that there had been no disability discrimination. So why was this? Well, it all came down to W’s own actions which the EAT said were unreasonable. At the point she insisted homeworking was “the only viable option” she had effectively closed her mind to all other possibilities and tied JCP’s hands.

A good outcome

JCP couldn’t accommodate W’s request but neither could it take any steps to investigate other options as she would not consent to it. This case is good news for employers and it confirms that in this type of situation you can’t be held “hostage” to demands for a homeworking system. Employees must co-operate with any reasonable investigation that you seek to make.