Roberts v North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust

The duty to make reasonable adjustments under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires an objective assessment of the steps which it is reasonable for the employer to take in all the circumstances. A tribunal's identification of an adjustment does not create an absolute obligation to achieve the stated result regardless of practicability. The adjustment must be assessed within the factual matrix, including the operational arrangements found by the tribunal. An appellate court will not interfere where the tribunal has applied that test and reached a permissible, non-perverse conclusion.

The claimant, an emergency medical dispatcher with social anxiety disorder, complained that the respondent's hot-desking policy placed him at a substantial disadvantage. He contended that the respondent should have ensured that his preferred peripheral workstation was available throughout his shifts.

An earlier Employment Appeal Tribunal appeal had been allowed and the case remitted for reconsideration. On remission, the Employment Tribunal held that hot-desking was a provision, criterion or practice which triggered the duty to make reasonable adjustments. It found that the reasonable adjustment was to make the preferred seat available, but that the respondent had discharged that duty in the circumstances. The claimant appealed against that conclusion. The respondent's conditional cross-appeal challenged the finding that a duty arose.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal made no error of law in deciding that the respondent had complied with its duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 4A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

2. The Tribunal had correctly found that hot-desking was a provision, criterion or practice which placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. It also correctly identified the adjustment as making his preferred workstation available from the start to the end of his shift.

3. That formulation was not an absolute requirement which the respondent necessarily breached whenever the seat was occupied, or required another worker to move. The question remained whether, objectively and in all the circumstances, the respondent had taken such steps as were reasonable to prevent the disadvantage. Practicability and the overall factual matrix formed part of that assessment.

4. Having regard to the Tribunal's findings about the operation of the control room and the arrangements made for the claimant, its conclusion that the respondent had discharged the duty was permissible and was not legally perverse.

5. There was consequently no need to revisit the original constructive-dismissal finding. The respondent's conditional cross-appeal was moot, and no order was made on it.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The claimant's second appeal was dismissed: [2013] UKEAT 0046_13_0810.
• Employment Tribunal: On remission, the Slater Tribunal again dismissed the claims in reasons dated 19 October 2012.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The first appeal was allowed on 24 January 2012 and the reasonable-adjustments issue was remitted for reconsideration.
• Employment Tribunal: The original Tribunal dismissed the claims in reasons dated 11 August 2010.