Support worker with osteoarthritis denied reasonable adjustments after furlough wins discrimination claim
A support worker with osteoarthritis was discriminated against by her employer, a disability charity, which failed to make reasonable adjustments and treated her less favourably than a non-disabled colleague after furlough. The tribunal upheld her disability discrimination claims but dismissed her constructive unfair dismissal claim.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a support worker for the respondent charity from 31 August 2019 until her resignation on 8 March 2022.
- The claimant had osteoarthritis in both knees and could not walk long distances or stand for long periods.
- The respondent knew of the claimant's disability from 27 August 2021.
- The claimant's non-disabled comparator, Miss Abraham, was given access to training and allowed to return to work after furlough, but the claimant was not.
- The respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by not allowing the claimant to perform duties that did not involve long walks.
- The claimant resigned not because of the respondent's breach of contract, but because she could not negotiate a settlement.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a support worker for the respondent.
-
National lockdown
COVID-19 lockdown began, impacting the respondent's services.
-
Furlough commenced
Claimant was placed on furlough due to the pandemic.
-
Knee injury reported
Claimant informed manager she had injured her knee and could not walk long distances or stand for long periods.
-
Courtesy calls ceased
Regular check-in calls from the Lodge stopped due to staff turnover and reopening preparations.
-
Furlough ended
Respondent wrote to claimant stating furlough had ended on 1 August 2021; later corrected to 10 August 2021.
-
Conversation with line manager
Claimant told Ms Barber she could only do light duties; Ms Barber said only jobs with extensive walking were available.
-
Fit note obtained
GP issued fit note stating claimant had osteoarthritis and could not walk long distances; needed light duties.
-
Comparator received training
Non-disabled colleague Miss Abraham was given access to online training to return to work.
-
Claimant decided not to return
During grievance meeting, claimant indicated she did not intend to return to work and sought financial compensation.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned by email, stating she would bring a tribunal claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent discriminated against the claimant because of her disability by failing to make reasonable adjustments, treating her less favourably than a non-disabled comparator, and treating her unfavourably because of something arising from her disability. It also had to decide whether the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claims for disability discrimination, including failure to make reasonable adjustments, direct discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability. However, the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed because the claimant resigned not due to a fundamental breach of contract but because she could not negotiate a settlement.
No compensation has been awarded yet; a remedy hearing will be listed to determine the amount.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, even during periods of furlough, and should not treat them less favourably than non-disabled colleagues.
- A failure to communicate or engage with a disabled employee about their return to work can amount to discrimination, especially if a comparator is treated more favourably.
- Resigning because you cannot negotiate a settlement is not constructive dismissal; you must resign in response to a fundamental breach of contract by the employer.
- Charities and other employers should ensure that their HR processes do not inadvertently discriminate against disabled staff, particularly when managing furlough and return to work.
A case of good intentions, poor practice
The Disablement Association of Barking and Dagenham is a charity that supports disabled people. But when it came to its own employee, a support worker with osteoarthritis in both knees, it failed to make the reasonable adjustments that the law requires.
The claimant had worked for the charity for two and a half years when the pandemic hit. She was furloughed in April 2020. In April 2021 she told her manager she had injured her knee and could not walk long distances or stand for long periods. By August 2021, the charity knew she was disabled, but it did not offer her light duties or allow her to return to work. Instead, a non-disabled colleague, Miss Abraham, was given access to online training and allowed to return.
The tribunal found that the charity had directly discriminated against the claimant by treating her less favourably than Miss Abraham. It had also failed to make reasonable adjustments by not allowing her to perform duties that did not involve long walks. And it had discriminated against her for something arising from her disability by not letting her return to work.
What the employer could have done differently
The charity could have avoided this claim by engaging with the claimant about her needs. When she said she could only do light duties, the charity could have explored whether there were tasks that did not require extensive walking. It could have referred her to occupational health. Instead, it effectively left her on furlough and then on sick pay, while allowing a non-disabled colleague to return.
The tribunal noted that the claimant's resignation was not because of a breach of contract but because she could not negotiate a settlement. That is why her constructive dismissal claim failed. But the discrimination claims succeeded, and a remedy hearing will now decide compensation.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that disability discrimination law applies to all employers, including charities. It also shows that furlough does not give employers a free pass to ignore their duties to disabled staff. Employers must consider reasonable adjustments even when an employee is not working, and must not treat disabled employees less favourably than non-disabled colleagues.
Similar cases
Administrative Officer's constructive dismissal claim over trigger words and phone policy rejected
An Administrative Officer who resigned after just seven weeks with the Ministry of Justice lost her claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The tribunal found her employer had acted reasonably throughout.
Sales assistant with chronic kidney disease loses disability discrimination claim over furlough placement
A former nurse turned sales assistant who was placed on furlough during the pandemic due to shielding advice has lost her disability and age discrimination claims against Irvings Butchers Limited.
Constructive dismissal and disability discrimination upheld against Mazars LLP
A former employee won claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against Mazars LLP after the firm failed to make reasonable adjustments and subjected him to harassment.
Seasonal groundsman dismissed while running own business: disability discrimination claims fail
A seasonal groundsman who was dismissed while signed off sick lost his disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims after the tribunal found he was not genuinely unable to work due to his disability but was instead pursuing his own private businesses.