Case in Point – When the low bar of compliance is enough
In some disability discrimination cases, doing the bare minimum can sometimes be enough to win, but 'winning' a tribunal doesn’t mean you are inclusive, a decent employer, or that you have a fair workplace culture.
In the recent case of Mr J R Phillips v Financial Ombudsman Service Limited, Mr Phillips claimed that his unauthorised absence was related to his disability and that his dismissal was discrimination arising from disability. Jacob Phillips was dismissed during his probation period due to a lengthy period of unauthorised absence. Phillips, who has ADHD, argued that he needed specific, reasonable adjustments, including tailored support and coaching, which he did receive.
When Phillips did get support in the form of coaching, management support, and OH referral, he claimed it was delayed, and the coaching was generic and not tailored to his needs. By the time he received help, he argued that the issues he was facing had worsened. The employer disagreed, stating that the dismissal was based on conduct and failure to follow absence procedures.
This was a case where the employer didn’t ignore the employee’s needs, but they weren’t entirely supportive in ensuring those needs were properly met.
The outcome
The result of the case was that the employer’s efforts, whilst not perfect, were simply ‘enough’. The tribunal dismissed all claims and found that reasonable steps had been taken to support the employee and therefore, the dismissal for unauthorised absence was both legitimate and proportionate.
Lessons Learned from the case
- Reasonable adjustments can be minimal and not necessarily focused towards best practice for employees
- Delays and timing problems can compound issues and escalate cases
- Even if disability is in the background, employers can still act if the issue is conduct-related and they have provided reasonable support in the first place
What can we take from this?
This case demonstrates that you can meet your legal obligations but still fail to be truly helpful. The key question for employers is whether they want to be a proactive and genuinely supportive employer who maximises the potential of all staff, or a reactive one that merely does enough to show reasonable effort, which can often be sufficient to avoid legal action. But this is by no means a victory for the organisation, money, internal bandwidth and reputation have all been spent and lost to achieve this ‘victory’.
If the tailored support the employee requested had been provided and no delays had occurred, there is, however, an argument that the prolonged absence would not have happened in the first place.
Sadly, this approach to reasonable adjustment is widespread throughout the UK. In many workplaces, the problem with reasonable adjustments isn't that they aren’t available, but that they are poorly managed and executed. For example, consider the following statistics from The Great Big Workplace Adjustments Survey 2023.
- 78 per cent of employees with disabilities said they, rather than their employer, had to initiate the process of getting adjustments.
- 58 per cent of employees said getting the adjustments they needed was due to how assertive and confident they are to ask for that support.
- 56 per cent of employees with disabilities said there are still disability related barriers in the workplace after adjustments have been made.
- Only 18 per cent of employees with disabilities said their adjustments have removed all barriers in the workplace.
Then there are the issues people have faced with Access to Work over many years. Complaints to DWP about the Government scheme to assist employers in making reasonable adjustments increased from 234 in 2022–23 to 657 in 2024–25, with 800 in the first six months of 2025–26, most related to delays in processing applications.
In short, for reasonable adjustments to be a useful and effective tool, we must see it as just that and ensure the process of accessing it is improved.
Let this interesting case serve as a reminder that, whilst meeting the bare minimum legal requirements may protect your organisation, it won’t necessarily protect your people, your reputation or your workplace culture.
