Making reasonable adjustments work: What recent tribunal decisions tell us
Posted on: 15/01/2026
Thought Leadership
These cases show that good practice in disability management isn’t just about avoiding risk, it’s about how we engage with people, understand their needs and make thoughtful, evidence-based decisions. Lorna Wells explores two recent tribunal cases that demonstrate employers getting it right, offering practical lessons for local authorities navigating complex neurodiversity and adjustment requests. The article highlights what meaningful engagement looks like and why clarity and fairness matter for both people and organisations
By Lorna Wells, LLM FCIPD, principal HR consultant at West Midlands Employers
Employment tribunal claim – how often have those words been uttered when trying to illustrate why a particular action in the workplace should or shouldn’t be taken? Of course, scare tactics should never be the foundation of good people management practice. Legislation is simply the floor: the minimum standards expected. It provides the rules, but how we manage and treat our people goes well beyond compliance. Effective practice, inclusive workplaces, a healthy workforce and a strong psychological contract all help us get the best out of people and deliver valuable services to our communities.
No surprises there. However, no matter how proactive we are with initiatives designed to prevent issues arising in the first place, a simple truth remains: conflict will inevitably occur from time to time, and when it does, we must respond appropriately and support a resolution.
Tribunal judgments highlighting how an employer got it wrong can certainly be helpful, but they can sometimes feel hard to relate to, or describe employer actions so distant from how we operate in local authorities that we overlook the underlying messages.
From time to time, though, cases emerge that show how to get it right and reinforce best practice approaches and the policies we aspire to. This article highlights two such cases concerning reasonable adjustments—an increasingly complex area to navigate, particularly around neurodiversity.
Case 1: K Jaydon v Threesixty Services LLP
In this case, an employee with ADHD and autism brought several Equality Act 2010 claims, alleging the employer had failed to provide adequate support. The claims included indirect and direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, victimisation, failure to make reasonable adjustments and constructive dismissal. Ms Jaydon worked as a Compliance Monitoring Officer for an organisation supporting independent financial advisers. The employer accepted that her ADHD and later-diagnosed autism amounted to disabilities under the Equality Act 2010.
The indirect discrimination claim centred on two elements said to disadvantage her because of disability:
1. A target of assessing 3.5 files per week.
2. An appraisal system that did not include quantifiable measures.
The tribunal found that the target did not place her at a disadvantage, as there was no evidence her disability affected her reading, writing or processing speeds. The employer had supported her workload at several points, including when she took on a major charity challenge and when she raised concerns about work pressure.
Regarding the appraisal process, the tribunal noted that she had been given ratings, explanations for those ratings and guidance on how to improve. That claim also failed.
For the discrimination arising from disability claim, Ms Jaydon identified the following consequences of her ADHD and autism:
• Slower reading and writing
• Additional time required due to slower processing.
• A tendency to focus on small details before the bigger picture.
• A communication style sometimes perceived as blunt or abrupt.
The tribunal accepted that the latter two were linked to her disabilities but found no evidence that the first two were. She also alleged unfavourable treatment, including increased scrutiny of her task completion times, lack of support, negative communication from her manager and unfavourable treatment in informal meetings. The tribunal found no evidence of such treatment. In fact, the employer had reduced workloads, provided additional time, offered practical suggestions to streamline tasks, and handled her grievance appropriately—crucially emphasising a continued desire to support her.
The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim also failed. The tribunal found the employer had already implemented a range of adjustments, including altering workloads, providing supportive meetings, exploring alternative roles, offering additional time and reiterating willingness to support her on return from sickness absence.
Her victimisation claim centred on the fact that a settlement agreement was raised as a potential resolution while she was off sick. The tribunal found the offer was not made in a threatening way, that she had access to legal advice and that she suffered no detriment for rejecting it.
Finally, on constructive dismissal, the tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract and no evidence of discrimination. The employer had made genuine attempts to address her concerns in a reasonable manner.
K Jaydon v Threesixty Services LLP
Case 2: Golam Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2025] EAT 132
Mr Chowdhury, a Customer Services Assistant responsible for platform patrols, developed a foot condition that made prolonged walking painful. After periods of sick leave, temporary desk duties and placement on the redeployment register, he remained unable to return to his substantive role. Occupational health confirmed he was unfit for that role but could potentially work part-time in a role not requiring walking. Unable to secure redeployment, he was dismissed in August 2021.
He brought claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments based on the organisation’s decision not to redeploy him into three roles he applied for, or into a helpdesk role by “bumping” another employee, and for not allowing him more time to find alternative employment. He also claimed discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal dismissed the claims, and the EAT upheld the decision.
The EAT found the employer was entitled not to redeploy him into roles where he did not meet the essential criteria. On the question of delaying dismissal, they noted that he had been absent or fit only for limited duties for over a year, there was no prospect of returning to his original role, and he had already applied for multiple alternative posts. Dismissing him at that point was deemed reasonable. The employer was also found to have a legitimate aim in establishing an employee’s fitness to work. The timing of the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim, and the reasonable adjustments claim therefore also failed.
Mr Golam Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: [2025] EAT 132 - GOV.UK.
Although these cases involve two very different circumstances, the lessons for managing disability at work are strikingly consistent. To avoid discrimination risks, employers should ensure the following can be demonstrated clearly:
• Decisions are based on facts. Medical information is key, though remember that an employee may still be able to prove a disability without a formal diagnosis, particularly in relation to neurodiversity.
• Engagement with the employee is meaningful and meets their individual needs.
• Discussions are conducted reasonably, with an open mind and a willingness to consider adjustments.
• Support and adjustment discussions are clearly communicated and documented.
• Detailed notes of meetings are retained.
• Any criteria for work performance or redeployment are genuinely necessary, with thought given to whether adjustments may be practicable.
• Procedures are followed.
• Available resources—including Access to Work—are explored.
Ensuring managers are trained and supported by those with appropriate expertise is essential. Practical steps and reasonable responses can easily become overshadowed by personal conflict, and independent support can be invaluable in reducing emotion and helping identify workable solutions. And as ever, dismissal must remain a last resort.
