Be reasonable - because the alternative could prove costly

When asked by employees to make reasonable adjustments, some employers will approach it in the spirit in which the Equality Act 2010 intended; to advance equality of opportunity for all. However, the honest knee-jerk reactions of others include “We need them back to work now”, “If we do it for one, we’ll have to do it for everyone” and “It won’t work”.

Invariably, these employers know of their duty to make reasonable adjustments to remove or reduce the disadvantages faced by a disabled employee or job applicant in the workplace which those who do not share their disability don’t face. But they have concerns: Are they creating an unfair advantage that other staff members will criticise them for? What if the employee’s needs change and they have to keep making adjustments? What if the adjustments are required for a longer period than the business can support?

No two people with disabilities are exactly alike and adjustments must be tailored to individual needs and specific workplace activities. It is also true that an employee’s needs might change over time, so the issue might need to be revisited – and other staff members’ unhelpful or obstructive reaction to any adjustment is not a valid defence to a failure to make reasonable adjustments. However, the recent case of Ms Janie Crampshee v Dignity Funerals Limited is a useful reminder to employers that an unreasonable response to what they consider to be an unsatisfactory timeframe can prove costly.

Donna Reynolds is a Partner, Blackadders

Ms Crampshee was employed by Aberdeen-based Dignity as a funeral director and, following a cancer diagnosis, had a long-term absence from work. When she returned, she was still suffering the lingering effects of treatment, and her hours were reduced – three days a week with three-hour shifts. She was unable to take on-call shifts or perform heavy lifting. Five months after returning to work, she was signed off work again due to “an acute reaction to stress” and an Occupational Health Report recommended a phased return to work, help with heavy lifting and a trial of on-call duties as a ‘floater’.

Dignity subsequently presented Ms Crampshee with three options: return to her full-time role, move to an administrative role on a trial basis and reduced salary, or face dismissal. Rejecting the admin role and unable to return to work because the adjustments were refused, she was dismissed.

The Employment Tribunal held that Dignity had “clear evidence…that over time, [Ms Crampshee] was likely to regain her strength and resume the full duties of a Funeral Director” and Dignity “was fixated on requiring [her] to give an ‘end date’ and ‘time scale’ for these adjustments.” Crucially, the Employment Tribunal found that “it was not reasonable, to require her to determine an ‘end date’ with any precision” which, in effect, amounted to a demand to waive her right to reasonable adjustments.

The temptation to try to gain an understanding, for operational reasons, of how long changes might need to be in place is understandable. However, to place an arbitrary deadline, especially when medical evidence is clear a return to full duties is possible with adjustments, is a mistake. Ms Crampshee was awarded £60,000 compensation and it is very possible this sum was greater than the cost of putting in place the adjustments she requested. It is therefore always advisable to avoid knee-jerk reactions and make an objective assessment of what is requested.

Donna Reynolds is a Partner, Blackadders