Makuchova v Guoman Hotel Management (UK) Ltd

The duty to make reasonable adjustments requires an employer to take steps which it is reasonable to take to avoid the disabled employee’s substantial disadvantage. The question is objective and is for the Employment Tribunal to decide on all the evidence. It is not determined by either party’s preferred adjustment.

Where medical evidence supports a return to the existing role with workable adjustments, and the employer offers those adjustments, the Tribunal may find that no further duty arises to secure alternative permanent work or training. That conclusion may be open where the employee refuses even to attempt the adjusted role.

The Claimant, a Food and Beverage Supervisor, was absent through psychological stress and spinal symptoms. Occupational medical evidence indicated that she could return to her existing role if she received frequent breaks from standing, restricted lifting and a phased return. It also identified possible lighter or sedentary alternative work.

The Respondent offered adjustments to the existing role and circulated vacancies. The Claimant sought finance or sales work, but did not apply for receptionist or switchboard vacancies. The Employment Tribunal at London (Central) dismissed her claims, including her claim that the Respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments.

On appeal, the Claimant contended that the Tribunal had wrongly treated the employer’s preferred adjustment as conclusive and had failed to consider alternative employment and training.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal had not applied an unfair-dismissal-style range of reasonable responses test. It decided for itself, on the evidence, whether the adjustments offered were reasonable.
2. The obligation under section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010 is to take steps which it is reasonable for the employer to take. It does not require acceptance of the employee’s own view of what adjustment would be reasonable.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to distinguish Archibald v Fife Council [2004] ICR 954. In that case the employee could no longer perform her former job. Here, the medical evidence supported the finding that the Claimant could return to her existing role if the Respondent implemented frequent breaks, restricted lifting and a phased return.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to rely on the Respondent’s willingness to make and maintain those adjustments, and on its finding that the Claimant refused even to contemplate trying them. On those facts, it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the Respondent was not then under a duty to be more interventionist in finding permanent alternative employment.
5. The Tribunal’s conclusion that there was no duty to provide training for a finance role was also open to it, since adjusted work was available which the Claimant could undertake without training.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against the dismissal of her reasonable-adjustments claim.
• Employment Tribunal, London (Central): dismissed claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and unlawful deductions from wages. The appeal concerned only the reasonable-adjustments aspect of the disability-discrimination claim.