Hot desking policies are increasingly common, but they can present challenges where disabled employees are concerned. A recent Employment Tribunal case, McGrath v Bupa Insurance Services Limited, highlights the distinction between disability-related harassment and reasonable adjustments and offers useful lessons for employers.
The claimant was disabled due to ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, dyslexia, and depression. His employer used a hot desking system, with desks booked via an online system and no long-term reservations. The claimant strongly preferred a particular desk in a quieter area of the office and worked from the office most days. Initially, this desk was generally available and, if someone else sat there, either the claimant or his manager would ask them to move.
Following a return to the office after Covid, a manager raised concerns that the claimant’s phone calls were disturbing trainees working nearby. He was asked to move away from that area, which he did, although he later returned to the desk. No disciplinary action followed.
Over time, further disputes arose when others sat at the claimant’s preferred desk. Although he was reminded that he could ask colleagues to move, the employer only took steps to permanently reserve the desk after the claimant had resigned.
The claimant brought several tribunal claims, including disability discrimination, victimisation, harassment, and constructive unfair dismissal. Most related to matters other than seating. However, he argued that being asked to move desks amounted to harassment related to disability.
The Employment Tribunal rejected the harassment claim. It found that the reason the claimant was asked to move was not related to his disability, but to concerns about noise and disruption to others. Even if the request had been linked to disability, the tribunal concluded that it did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, or degrading environment. Importantly, the claimant did not pursue a claim that the hot desking policy should have been adjusted to provide him with a permanent desk as a reasonable adjustment.
This case was relatively straightforward for the tribunal, but it still carries important reminders for HR teams:
Hot desking can trigger reasonable adjustment issues, even if no formal request is made. Harassment claims are not the only legal risk, and the way changes are communicated matters. Seating changes involving disabled employees should be managed sensitively and privately, with a clear explanation.
Managers should be alert to situations where a fixed desk may help reduce disadvantage, even if the employee has not explicitly framed it as a legal request.
Hot desking policies are lawful, but they are not one size fits all. Employers should ensure managers are trained to recognise when flexibility or adjustments may be needed and to oversee desk moves in a way that is respectful, transparent, and supportive.
If you need any further advice and help, please do not hesitate to contact the Quest HR Advice Line on 01455 852028.
