Security officer with Asperger's denied shifts after disclosing disability: discrimination claims succeed
A relief security officer with only two weeks' service won his disability discrimination claim after his employer stopped offering him shifts when he disclosed his Asperger's and dyslexia and asked for flexibility on start times.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #section-15
- #timekeeping
- #shift-patterns
- #part-time-worker
- #employment-status
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a Relief Security Officer from 25 December 2020 to 8 January 2021.
- The claimant has Asperger's Syndrome and dyslexia, which affect his timekeeping and ability to plan.
- The claimant was late for shifts on 25 December 2020, 2 January 2021, and 7 January 2021.
- On 7 January 2021, the claimant disclosed his disabilities to the respondent and requested flexibility with start times.
- The respondent did not offer the claimant further shifts after 8 January 2021.
- The respondent attempted to arrange weekend shifts for the claimant but was unable to do so.
Timeline
-
Claimant responds to Facebook advert
The claimant expressed interest in security work via Facebook and spoke to Tony Austin, Operations Manager.
-
First shift worked
Claimant started work as a Relief Security Officer at the Old Derby Royal Infirmary. He was 5-10 minutes late.
-
Late for shift
Claimant was 5 minutes late for his 6pm shift.
-
Meeting about lateness and disability disclosure
Claimant met with Mr Austin, disclosed his Asperger's and dyslexia, and requested flexibility. He also said he could not work over 48 hours without adjustments.
-
Last shift worked
Claimant worked his final shift, finishing on 9 January 2021.
-
Claimant messages Mr Austin
Claimant sent a message listing dates he could not work and expressed hope to continue working together.
-
Claimant chases response
Claimant messaged Mr Austin again, asking if his disability and hours discussion had affected his chances. Mr Austin replied it was about other staff changing shifts.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant submitted a grievance alleging discrimination and unfair dismissal.
-
Respondent's grievance response
Mr Nason replied, citing lateness and performance issues, and stating the claimant's disability was only raised when performance was challenged.
-
Claim presented to Tribunal
Claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee or a worker, and whether the respondent's failure to offer further shifts after he disclosed his disabilities amounted to discrimination arising from disability (section 15 EqA) and a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claims of disability discrimination under section 15 EqA and failure to make reasonable adjustments, but dismissed claims for direct discrimination, part-time worker less favourable treatment, and a claim under section 45A Employment Rights Act.
Key reasons:
- The claimant was an employee, not just a worker, because there was an ongoing employment relationship despite irregular shifts.
- The respondent's decision to stop offering shifts was unfavourable treatment arising from the claimant's disability (his lateness caused by Asperger's and dyslexia).
- The respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment by not considering flexibility with start times, which would not have been a substantial burden.
Compensation will be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even very short service (two weeks) does not prevent a disability discrimination claim if the employer's actions are linked to the disability.
- Disclosing a disability and requesting a reasonable adjustment triggers a duty on the employer to consider and implement it if reasonable, regardless of how long the employee has worked there.
- Employers should not assume that attendance issues are misconduct without exploring whether they are linked to a disability and whether adjustments could help.
- A relief or zero-hours worker can still be an employee if there is an ongoing employment relationship, which gives them access to unfair dismissal and discrimination protections.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how quickly a disability discrimination claim can arise, even when an employee has only worked for two weeks. The claimant, a relief security officer with Asperger's Syndrome and dyslexia, was late for three shifts. When he disclosed his disabilities and asked for flexibility on start times, his employer effectively stopped offering him any further shifts. The tribunal found that this was not a neutral response to lateness but unfavourable treatment arising from his disability, because the lateness itself was a consequence of his conditions.
What the losing side could have done differently
Sentry Consulting Limited could have avoided liability by engaging with the claimant's request for a reasonable adjustment. The tribunal noted that allowing a small amount of flexibility on start times would not have been a substantial burden. Instead, the company did not offer any further shifts and did not properly consider the adjustment. The employer also failed to recognise that the claimant was an employee, not just a casual worker, which meant he had full protection under the Equality Act.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision is a reminder that disability discrimination protections apply from day one of employment. Employers who rely on zero-hours or relief contracts should not assume they can simply stop offering shifts without consequences when a disability is disclosed. The case also shows that tribunals will look at the substance of the working relationship, not just the label, to determine employment status. For employees with conditions affecting timekeeping or planning, this case reinforces the importance of requesting adjustments early and documenting the employer's response.
Similar cases
Senior hairdresser with long COVID wins constructive dismissal case over part-time return refusal
A senior hairdresser with 12 years' service who resigned after her employer refused her GP-recommended phased return of two days a week has been awarded £13,699 for constructive unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Bid Manager with 12 years' service awarded £964k after disability discrimination and victimisation
A tribunal found that Mears Group plc unfairly dismissed a Bid Manager with spinal injuries and victimised her for raising concerns about reasonable adjustments. She was awarded £964,465.37.
Menopause symptoms as a disability: reasonable adjustments and section 15 claims succeed
A telesales consultant with menopausal symptoms won £64,645 after her employer failed to make reasonable adjustments and treated her unfavourably due to her disability.
Disabled local government officer unfairly dismissed after council failed to support redeployment
A local government officer with fibromyalgia was unfairly dismissed when Hull City Council failed to provide support during a redundancy process. The tribunal awarded £12,000 for injury to feelings and ordered re-engagement.