Following the decision in Dyer v London Ambulance NHS Trust this week, a case which confirmed that it was unreasonable to expect an employer to ban its employees from wearing perfume or aerosol deodorants for fear of setting off a disabled employee’s severe allergic reaction to aerosols, we explore some of the more extreme requests from employees for reasonable adjustments to be made and whether a refusal to accommodate a more bizarre request for a reasonable adjustment can amount to disability discrimination.
In the Dyer case, the Claimant was a call operator in a busy 999 call centre. She developed a severe reaction to an aerosol body spray after 7 years in employment. The employee went off work sick following a near-death experience and was unable to return, as her employer refused to implement an aerosol and perfume free policy in the work environment. The Tribunal noted that such a policy would have been almost impossible to implement in a busy environment (and of course, in the event of someone inadvertently forgetting this rule, it could have proved fatal for the Claimant and thus had the opposite effect to alleviating the disadvantage).
The Dyer case is a good example of adjustments in the workplace needing to be practicable. There have, however, been many other cases of extreme or unreasonable adjustments being requested over the years, which include:
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Job Centre Plus) a v Wilson, where it was not a reasonable adjustment to allow an agoraphobic employee to work permanently from home;
Crossland v OCS Group, where a diabetic security guard who had refused to patrol outside (due to what he perceived to be a real risk of him having a hypoglycaemic episode which could have lead to serious injury or, as he argued, even death) was found to be unreasonable; the EAT had correctly pointed out that his perceived risk of imminent death would have been equal, whether he was working alone inside, or patrolling outside;
Pawlicka v St John and Red Cross Defence Medical Welfare Service, an ET decision which confirmed that an employee whose job it was to accompany relatives of deceased individuals to the mortuary for identification purposes could not succeed in a claim for a failure to make reasonable adjustments based on necrophobia (a fear of dead bodies);
Aitken v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, where it was found to be unreasonable for a police officer with violent tendencies to be absolved from having to work with either women or members of the public; and
Cordell v FCO, where hiring lip speaker support for a deaf senior diplomat would have cost the employer an anticipated £250,000 per annum.
These cases provide working examples of how reasonable adjustment claims may fail if the proposed adjustments are impracticable, costly, or simply if no adjustments were available which could alleviate the disadvantage suffered. Of course, each case will turn on its facts, and what is unreasonable for one employee may not be unreasonable for another.
0 Comments