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.

The updates are kindly provided by Simons Muirhead & Burton Law firm

This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and help judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.