A recent Employment Tribunal decision provides an important reminder to employers of the need to carefully consider requests for reasonable adjustments, particularly where an employee has shown a neurodivergent condition.
In D Vale v the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary, the Tribunal considered whether the employer had failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments by not providing noise-cancelling headphones to an employee with ADHD.
The decision highlights the importance of focusing on the practical disadvantage experienced by an employee and taking reasonable steps to address that disadvantage.
Ms Vale was employed as a Victim and Witness Care Officer on a fixed-term contract covering a colleague’s secondment.
During her induction, Ms Vale showed that she had been diagnosed with ADHD by a private provider regulated by the Care Quality Commission. She explained that background noise affected her ability to concentrate and requested noise-cancelling headphones as a workplace adjustment.
As she prepared to undertake telephone calls, discussions took place about telephone headsets. Ms Vale reiterated her request for noise-cancelling headphones and explained why she considered them necessary.
Her manager said approval was needed and questioned why standard headphones would not suffice. The noise-cancelling headphones were not provided. Although Ms Vale owned a pair for home use, she did not use them at work or tell her manager about them.
The Tribunal nevertheless found that this did not remove the employer’s obligation to consider whether providing headphones at work would be a reasonable adjustment.
Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 requires an employer, where the duty applies, to take such steps as are reasonable to avoid a disabled employee being placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled employees.
The Tribunal considered whether Ms Vale’s ADHD placed her at a substantial disadvantage and whether noise-cancelling headphones would have been a reasonable adjustment. The Tribunal noted that Ms Vale had clearly explained that background noise affected her concentration. She had raised the request at the outset of her employment and repeated it during later discussions concerning telephone equipment.
The Tribunal concluded that providing noise-cancelling headphones would have been a reasonable adjustment. The employer’s failure to provide them therefore amounted to a failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
One particularly useful aspect of the decision concerns Ms Vale’s existing headphones.
The fact that she owned noise-cancelling headphones for personal use did not mean that the employer was relieved of its responsibilities under the Equality Act.
The duty to make reasonable adjustments is imposed on the employer. Where the statutory conditions are met, the employer must consider what reasonable steps it should take to remove or reduce the disadvantage experienced by the employee.
Employers should not assume that employees who own suitable equipment must use their private property at work.
Whether an adjustment is reasonable will depend on the circumstances, including the nature of the disadvantage, the effectiveness of the proposed adjustment and the practical and financial implications.
The case also highlights the importance of understanding the legal definition of disability.
An employee does not necessarily need a formal diagnosis before the protections of the Equality Act 2010 can apply. The statutory test focuses on whether an individual has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to conduct normal day-to-day activities.
Employers should therefore focus on the evidence concerning the employee’s condition and its practical effects rather than simply on the diagnostic label.
In Ms Vale’s case, her manager questioned the legitimacy of her ADHD diagnosis and suggested that the private provider may have exploited her. However, those concerns did not address the central issue for the purposes of the reasonable-adjustments duty: the effect of the impairment and whether reasonable steps could be taken to alleviate the disadvantage experienced at work.
Where further information is needed, an occupational health referral may aid in understanding the employee’s circumstances and finding appropriate adjustments.
The decision provides several practical lessons.
First, adjustment requests should be taken seriously and considered promptly. A request for simple equipment should not be dismissed or left unresolved.
Second, employers should engage with the employee. This should include understanding the disadvantage being experienced and considering how the proposed adjustment would address it.
Third, employers should obtain proper advice where necessary. Occupational health input can be useful where there is uncertainty about the nature of an impairment or the adjustments that may be appropriate.
Fourth, employers should keep clear records. Adjustment requests, discussions, decisions and actions should be properly documented to help ensure requests are not overlooked.
Finally, managers should be appropriately trained. Managers are often the first point of contact when an employee raises a potential disability-related issue and should understand when HR or specialist advice should be sought.
D Vale v the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary proves that reasonable adjustments can involve straightforward measures, but employers must nevertheless consider whether those measures are needed to remove or reduce a substantial disadvantage.
The decision reinforces the importance of focusing on the practical effects of an impairment rather than becoming unnecessarily focused on the diagnostic label or the source of an employee’s diagnosis. For employers, the key message is clear: where an employee raises a potential disability-related disadvantage, the request should be thoroughly investigated, considered and documented. Where a simple adjustment could effectively address that disadvantage, not taking proper action may expose the employer to liability under the Equality Act 2010.
If you need any further advice and help, please do not hesitate to contact the Quest HR Advice Line on 01455 852028.
