The Claimant was employed by the DWP as a Work Coach from January 2021 to March 2022 on a fixed term contract. The job description for this role described a variety of IT systems that would need to be used. The Claimant found it difficult when being trained on these systems. He informed his employer that he found it hard to process information and was on the waiting list for an autism assessment.
Reasonable adjustments were put in place such as one-on-one coaching and support. This resulted in the Claimant having a “meltdown” on one occasion. The Claimant asked if he could do parts of the job that did not involve the use of a computer or have customer contact. The Respondent contended that this formed a very small part of his overall role.
The Claimant attended a probation review meeting in May 2021. He stated that he did not feel he could carry out the role. He was informed that the training would need to be completed in order to satisfy the probation conditions. The Claimant was also told that it was possible for an alternative role to be found using the job carving policy, but this was made more challenging due to his lack of official diagnosis.
The Respondent decided to dismiss the Claimant. The Claimant appealed and his probation period was extended for a further three months and a plan was made to enable the Claimant to complete training. From August the Claimant was absent from work due to stress.
The Claimant passed the probation period in October by way of a letter. The Claimant was invited to discuss alternative roles but was unable to attend as it was scheduled for the same day as his autism assessment. He also asked for a companion and was informed of his statutory right to bring a colleague or trade union rep. In December the Claimant received an official diagnosis and at this point he was permitted to be accompanied by someone from a specialist organisation.
The Claimant attended a meeting in March 2022. He was asked by his line manager if he could use the IT system in an alternative role. It was also later found by the tribunal that his line manager had taken an “aggressive approach” to the meeting. A colleague who was acting as note taker asked the Claimant “Can you tell me for the notes what type of autism you have and any medication you take for it?” a question the Claimant did not answer. The tribunal noted that the Claimant’s line manager did not step in when he had been asked this “offensive and ignorant question.” The meeting was cut short and the Claimant was asked to email any questions he had.
The Claimant handed in his notice shortly thereafter. He stated he felt he was being ignored and treated like a “nuisance”. The Claimant was successful in his claims for unfavourable treatment and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Not applying the job carving policy during the Claimant’s probationary period was a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. The Judge noted the Claimant’s suitability for roles working with those with additional support needs or reviewing CVs. Another example of a failure to make a reasonable adjustment was the Claimant having been initially denied his companion of choice.
For employers, this case shows the importance of actively considering reasonable adjustments even at an early stage of employment.
If you have any questions on any of the issues raised in the above article, please contact Natalia Milne.