A tribunal found it reasonable for a law firm to discuss hybrid working with a disabled secretary.
- The firm did not discriminate, harass, or fail to accommodate the secretary’s disability reasonably.
- The tribunal highlighted that the secretary’s reluctance to return to the office was not due to disability.
- The firm consistently sought and implemented specialist advice to support the secretary’s needs.
- The tribunal ruled that the firm’s actions were justified and unrelated to the secretary’s disability.
An employment tribunal has ruled in favour of a London law firm, affirming that it was reasonable for the firm to propose a hybrid working arrangement for a disabled secretary, Yolanda Pemberton. The tribunal concluded that the firm’s request for Ms Pemberton to work two days a week in the office did not constitute discrimination, harassment, or a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal noted that Ms Pemberton’s reasons for avoiding office work were unrelated to her disability. Instead, she cited concerns about being immune-suppressed and facing disproportionate Covid-19 risks due to her ethnic minority status. However, during discussions, Ms Pemberton admitted there was no physical barrier preventing her from working in the office, subject to an updated risk assessment.
RBG Legal Services, where Ms Pemberton was employed, had made significant accommodations over a three-year period to ensure her comfort while working from home. This included providing ergonomic equipment and specialist dictation software following multiple assessments and reports. The tribunal praised the firm for adhering to medical and expert advice promptly, which included offering equipment tailored to her needs, such as a light-touch keyboard and a large monitor.
Judge Segal KC articulated that the firm’s inquiries into office working were logical, given the operational benefits of having secretaries present on-site. Daniel Abrahams, Ms Pemberton’s supervisor, had even adjusted his work habits to support her limited capacity. The tribunal found Mr Abrahams’ adaptation of taking on more administrative tasks as evidence of reasonable adjustment by the firm.
Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed Ms Pemberton’s claim, framing her expectation as an ‘unfair burden’ on her employer. Judge Segal noted that Ms Pemberton’s stance during discussions was ambiguous and uncooperative, leading to the conclusion that RBG’s actions were unrelated to her disability and were instead aligned with reasonable business practices.
The tribunal concluded that RBG Legal Services acted within their rights and did not discriminate against Ms Pemberton.
