Legal case – Cherrington v Home Office

This legal case is about a disabled woman who had dyslexia and sight loss who was unable to start a job she was offered because of computer software compatibility problems.

Last Modified: 11 October 2024


Legal case – Cherrington v Home Office

Summary

  • A disabled woman who had dyslexia and sight loss was unable to start a job she was offered because of computer software compatibility problems.
  • She was offered an alternative position but was unable to do the job because her employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for her in that role because of the cost quoted by its outsourced IT provider. 
  • The Tribunal said that a service level agreement with an outsourced IT provider was not a defence for a failure to make reasonable adjustments. 
  • The employer used paid disability leave as an excuse for not making adjustments and failed to act on Access to Work recommendations. 
  • It also wrongly suggested she should apply and compete for alternative positions within the organisation rather than transferring her to a suitable alternative position as the law requires. 
  • She was awarded £14,000 in compensation for injury to feelings. 

Comment 

Employers have a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. 

This case shows that it is not enough for an employer to have reasonable adjustment policies, disability leave provisions, Access to Work assessments and service level agreements with providers of adjustments. The legal duty is to make reasonable adjustments that will remove or reduce the disadvantage faced by the disabled employee to enable them to work. Reasonable adjustments must be implemented. 

Most importantly, employers cannot abdicate their responsibility to make the adjustments to outsourced providers and rely on the cost quoted by a contracted supplier to decide that adjustments are unreasonable when alternatives are available. Where an employer receives vastly different quotes for reasonable adjustments by an outsourced provider, they must explore the reasons for the difference in cost. It will not be sufficient to rely on the most expensive quote as a reason not to make the adjustments. 

Further information 

See the full details of the case in our Neurodiversity Toolkit.  


If you require this content in a different format, contact enquiries@businessdisabilityforum.org.uk.

© This resource and the information contained therein are subject to copyright and remain the property of the Business Disability Forum. They are for reference only and must not be copied or distributed without prior permission.


Bookmark (0)
Please login to bookmarkClose