Garrett v Lidl Ltd EAT/0541/08

disability discrimination | duty to make reasonable adjustments | change of place of work

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employer complied with its duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees when it moved an employee to another location where the adjustments could be more easily made.

Mrs Garrett was a manager in Lidl's Woolwich store. She has fibromyalgia syndrome, which causes pain, fatigue and muscle stiffness. The employer made various adjustments to her work, including allowing her to take breaks when needed. Following a risk assessment and further discussions, the employer decided that Mrs Garrett could no longer cope at the busy Woolwich store and proposed that she be moved to the training store in Welling, where it felt that it would be easier to accommodate the adjustments that she needed. Mrs Garrett said that she wanted to remain in Woolwich, but was eventually convinced to return to work at the Welling store. She claimed that the employer had not complied with its duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. She also claimed that she had been harassed and victimised by various managers.

An employment tribunal dismissed Mrs Garrett's claims. It found that the Woolwich store had a high turnover of customers, which made taking breaks difficult. The pressures at the Welling office were less and so it was easier to make adjustments there than in the Woolwich office, where the changes were not practical. The tribunal also noted that the distance for Mrs Garrett to travel to the new store was not significant and she had a mobility clause in her contract of employment that required her to work in different stores. Therefore, the employer had complied with its duty to make reasonable adjustments. The employer also dismissed Mrs Garrett's harassment and victimisation claims.

Although the EAT remitted Mrs Garrett's harassment and victimisation claims to the employment tribunal, it rejected her appeal on the duty to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal had correctly asked itself whether or not the adjustments could have been made at Mrs Garrett's existing place of work. While there is nothing to stop a large employer from making adjustments by finding an employee an alternative place of work, it makes good industrial sense for it to consider whether or not those adjustments could be made at the existing place of work. However, the EAT did not consider it unreasonable for this employer to conclude that the adjustments could best be achieved by a move to another place of work, particularly as Mrs Garrett had a mobility clause in her contract of employment and had in the past worked at several of the employer's stores.

Case transcript of Garrett v Lidl Ltd (Microsoft Word format, 123K) (on the EAT website)

Go to HR & Compliance Centre case law stop press.