Halfords to Pay £25,000 to a Disabled Employee After Repeated Failures in Implementing Adjustments
Halfords Autocentres Ltd has been instructed to reevaluate its EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) training as it continuously fell short in applying necessary accommodations as identified in three separate risk assessments.
Tribunal
A tribunal in Bury St Edmunds determined that the motoring retail company discriminated against Paul Withers, an MOT tester, based on his disability.
The tribunal concluded that during the last 12 months of his employment, Withers was consistently promised reasonable adjustments that were never effectively implemented, leaving him repeatedly disappointed.
Medical Conditions
Withers began his employment at Halfords Autocentre in Milton Keynes in October 2019 and disclosed his condition during the interview, explaining his challenges with certain tasks, such as changing tires.
The initial four months of Withers' employment went smoothly, but in February 2020, his hip inflammation and ankle pain made weight-bearing painful, leading to several sick days and the eventual use of a crutch for pain relief.
In August 2020, Withers sought medical attention, which resulted in a referral for an MRI scan and physiotherapy. In December 2020, he experienced acid reflux as a side effect of his pain medication and was later admitted to the hospital due to a muscle spasm in his back.
Despite several periods of sickness absence in 2020, Withers had only one return-to-work interview, contrary to company policy, which mandated such interviews after each absence.
Risk Assessment
On November 12, 2020, a first risk assessment was conducted after it was discovered that Withers was using a crutch. At this point, the tribunal found that the only adjustments made to mitigate the claimant's disability were improvised and inconsistently applied. For example, to alleviate pain caused by prolonged standing, Withers had to borrow a stool from the tea room to use at his MOT desk.
In addition to Withers not receiving a more suitable chair, as specified by the risk assessment, until six months later, the assessment outlined various measures to reduce his need to walk and allow adequate break time for managing his workload comfortably. These measures included blocking out slots at lunchtime and the end of the day and having a colleague bring car keys to him to save him from walking to reception. However, the tribunal found that these measures were merely aspirational and not actually put into practice.
In January 2021, Withers received a 'record of improvement' that emphasised the need for him to ensure his attendance was '100% going forward.'
Difficulties
In May 2021, a second risk assessment was conducted, during which Withers reported his difficulties in performing MOTs on specific types of vehicles due to his disability. Although he expressed a willingness to perform other technician work, this constituted only 10%-20% of his weekly workload. In the same document, it was mentioned that Withers' inability to perform tests on certain vehicles could potentially harm the business.
In June 2021, Withers was interviewed about his alleged failure to identify a missing wheel bolt during an MOT test, and he was subsequently summoned to a disciplinary hearing for alleged gross misconduct on July 14. Withers cited the failure to implement the measures outlined in the risk assessments as the cause of his pain and received a final written warning following the hearing.
Alleged Discrimination
Around August 3, 2021, Paul Withers informed Halfords' employee relations officer that he had contacted Acas, believing that the failure to implement the risk assessments amounted to discrimination. The next day, a third risk assessment was conducted.
On August 5, Withers submitted a grievance related to the attendance warning, the failure to implement risk assessments, and the disciplinary procedure. In September, he was informed that the grievance was dismissed on all three points, a decision he subsequently appealed. After a hearing on October 5, the company reversed its decision on point 2, acknowledging its failure to properly implement the risk assessment measures.
On November 4, Withers resigned from his position and secured another job elsewhere.
Alleged Discrimination
After a period of conciliation by Acas, Withers filed a claim against Halfords, alleging that the company's handling of his sickness absence, particularly his perception that it was treated as a disciplinary matter, combined with their repeated failures to implement the reasonable adjustments identified in the risk assessments, constituted a course of discriminatory conduct leading to his constructive dismissal on disability grounds on November 25, 2021.
Halfords defended itself by claiming to be a supportive and considerate employer that correctly followed its own procedures regarding absence and disciplinary matters. They asserted that they voluntarily identified reasonable adjustments to support Withers and implemented them to the best of their ability, suggesting that Withers' perception of discrimination was based on misconceptions.
The Verdict
Following a hearing in May 2023, the tribunal panel rejected Withers' claims of harassment, victimisation, and discriminatory dismissal but found his claims of discrimination arising from disability and the failure to implement reasonable adjustments to be well-founded and, therefore, successful.
In August 2023, Judge Conley awarded Withers £24,199.45 for Halfords' failure to implement reasonable adjustments and the emotional distress he experienced due to his treatment.
Judge Conley noted that Withers had felt insecure and anxious about his sickness absences, experiencing pressure to work at the same rate and under the same conditions as colleagues without disabilities. Management was found to be complacent in making the necessary reasonable adjustments.
Judge Conley recommended that Halfords review its equality, diversity, and inclusion training, not only for new starters but also for managers. The panel expressed concern about the complacency within the management regarding the issues raised in the case and the persistence of attitudes that led to the discriminatory actions.