Agency worker's disability discrimination claim struck out against agency

This case shows the importance of identifying who actually made the decision you are challenging in a discrimination claim. The claimant, a sterile cleaning supervisor, resigned from her job to take up a new role through an agency at GlaxoSmithKline. Two days before her start date, the offer was rescinded after an incident at work. She believed the agency had colluded with her former employer and GSK to discriminate against her because of her depression and PTSD.

However, the evidence showed that the decision to rescind was made by GSK, not the agency. In fact, the agency's managers had supported the claimant and opposed the rescission. The claimant could not identify any discriminatory act by the agency, and her own description of the agency staff was positive. As a result, the tribunal struck out her claim against the agency at a preliminary stage.

What the agency could have done differently

In this case, the agency appears to have acted correctly – it supported the claimant and opposed GSK's decision. However, the outcome might have been different if the agency had taken steps to challenge GSK's decision more formally, or if it had ensured the claimant understood that the decision was not its own. For employers and agencies, this case is a reminder that clear communication about who makes decisions can prevent misunderstandings and claims.

Why this matters for similar claims

For agency workers, this case highlights a practical reality: if the discriminatory act is done by the end-user client, the claim should be against that client, not the agency. The agency may still have some liability if it fails to take reasonable steps to protect the worker, but here the agency actively supported the claimant. Claimants should carefully consider which respondent is responsible for the alleged discrimination and ensure their claim form sets out specific acts by each respondent.