Parking dispute after office move: constructive dismissal claim fails against ACAS
A former employee with 25 years' service lost his constructive dismissal claim against ACAS after resigning over parking arrangements following an office move. The tribunal found the employer had acted reasonably.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #disability-discrimination
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #office-move
- #parking
- #sick-pay-exhaustion
Key facts
- Mr Mendez worked for ACAS from 1997 until his resignation on 30 June 2022.
- He had osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, and ACAS provided various adjustments including a disabled parking space at Euston Tower.
- ACAS moved to Windsor House in 2020, which had no onsite parking, and explored alternative parking and taxi options.
- Mr Mendez refused an occupational health assessment and did not clearly communicate his walking limitations.
- He exhausted his sick pay entitlement and was notified he would go on nil pay, leading to his resignation.
- The tribunal found ACAS had not breached contract or discriminated, and dismissed all claims.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Mendez began working for ACAS.
-
Homeworking mandate
All ACAS staff told to work from home due to COVID-19.
-
New office announced
ACAS announced move to Windsor House, which had no onsite parking.
-
Grievance raised
Mr Mendez raised a grievance about the office move, alleging discrimination.
-
Car park list provided
ACAS provided a list of six nearby car parks for Mr Mendez to consider.
-
Meeting on parking
Mr Mendez identified two car parks he considered suitable.
-
Nil pay notification
ACAS confirmed Mr Mendez would go on nil pay from 18 April 2022 after exhausting sick pay.
-
Resignation
Mr Mendez resigned, giving one month's notice.
-
Last day of employment
Mr Mendez's employment ended.
-
Tribunal decision
All claims dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether ACAS constructively dismissed the employee by failing to provide adequate parking adjustments, and whether this amounted to disability discrimination or unlawful deduction of wages.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including constructive unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions, and disability discrimination.
Key reasons:
- ACAS had explored alternative parking options and provided a list of nearby car parks.
- The employee refused an occupational health assessment and did not clearly communicate his walking limitations.
- The decision to stop sick pay after entitlement was exhausted was lawful.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were not well-founded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees should clearly communicate any specific limitations and engage with occupational health assessments to support reasonable adjustment requests.
- Employers who explore and offer alternative options for workplace adjustments may be seen as acting reasonably, even if the employee's preferred option is not available.
- Exhausting sick pay entitlement does not automatically amount to a breach of contract or constructive dismissal.
- Resigning without first giving the employer a chance to address concerns can weaken a constructive dismissal claim.
What this case shows
This case illustrates the limits of an employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments when an office move removes a previously provided adjustment. The employee, who had worked for ACAS for 25 years, had been given a disabled parking space at the old office. When ACAS moved to a new building without onsite parking, it explored alternatives including nearby car parks and taxi options.
The tribunal found that ACAS had acted reasonably by engaging with the employee, providing a list of car parks, and offering to pay for parking. The employee's refusal to attend an occupational health assessment and his failure to clearly explain his walking difficulties meant the employer could not fully assess his needs.
What could have been done differently
The employee might have strengthened his case by attending the occupational health assessment and clearly documenting his specific limitations. For employers, the case shows that proactive communication and offering alternatives can defend against discrimination claims, even when the employee's preferred solution is not feasible.
Why this matters
The decision confirms that an employer is not required to provide the exact adjustment an employee wants, as long as they have taken reasonable steps. It also highlights that employees who resign without giving the employer a chance to address concerns may struggle to prove constructive dismissal.
Similar cases
Pharmacy technician's constructive dismissal claim fails after not sharing adjustment passport with new employer
A pharmacy dispensary technician with fibromyalgia and other conditions lost her constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims after the tribunal found she did not share her adjustment passport with her new employer following a TUPE transfer.
Registered Nurse lost constructive dismissal claim over protected disclosure and discrimination
A tribunal dismissed all claims by a dementia ward nurse who resigned after suspension, finding no link between his protected disclosure and the employer's actions.
Dental nurse's constructive dismissal and discrimination claims rejected by tribunal
A dental nurse who resigned after securing another job failed to prove she was constructively dismissed or that her employer discriminated against her. All claims were dismissed.
Shift team leader loses constructive dismissal claim after credibility issues
A shift team leader with 9 years' service resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan, but the tribunal dismissed all claims, finding no breach of contract and serious credibility problems with his evidence.