In Linsley v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Custom, L has ulcerative colitis, which can manifest itself in a sudden and urgent need for a bowel movement. L drove 17 miles to work. HMRC’s Occupational Health Service stated that L would benefit from a dedicated car park space as she needed quick access to the toilet, particularly as her lengthy commute can cause issues with continence, which in turn create issues with anxiety. HMRC policy gives priority to those staff members requiring a parking space as a reasonable adjustment, but while L had been given priority at other sites, she was not provided with a dedicated space when she moved to the Benton Park View site, even though she had complained. The EAT ruled that the ET’s rejection of L’s failure to make reasonable adjustments claim could not stand. The ET had found that HMRC had failed to comply with its own parking policy but rejected it as a factor because the policy was discretionary and not contractual, but a policy does not have to be contractual in determining whether or not an adjustment is reasonable. Furthermore, the ET failed to focus on the particular disadvantage L suffered, i.e. the stress of having to look for a parking place.
ET failed to focus on anxiety suffered by employee with colitis who was denied a parking space
Article by: Makbool Javaid |