A recent employment tribunal has provided a useful reminder for employers about managing workplace adjustments, responding to medical advice, and documenting decision-making when supporting employees with health conditions.
The case involved an employee at a frozen food manufacturer who was diagnosed with Raynaud’s Syndrome, a condition that can restrict blood flow to the fingers and toes when exposed to cold temperatures. After receiving her diagnosis, she asked to be moved to a warmer working environment because of the impact that cold conditions could have on her health.
Occupational health and her GP both recommended that she be moved to a warmer area. The employer responded by relocating her to a section of the business known as “the Pod”, which was warmer than her previous working environment. However, she repeatedly requested a move to another area where her partner worked. The company declined this request, citing separate health considerations, including restrictions around lifting, and the suitability of the role available in that area.
During discussions with management, the employee reported that she had attended A&E and had been told that continuing to work in the cold could put her health at serious risk. Given the information provided, the company took the decision to place her on medical suspension while it carried out further risk assessments and sought to establish a safe way forward. The tribunal later found that this was a reasonable and appropriate response based on the information available at the time.
Over the following weeks, the employer conducted several risk assessments and explored alternative roles and locations, taking into account not only the employee’s sensitivity to cold but also other health restrictions. Throughout this period, the company sought advice from occupational health and relied on medical recommendations to guide its decisions.
The employee subsequently raised a grievance and later brought tribunal claims, including allegations of disability discrimination and direct sex discrimination. Part of her argument was that her partner, who had different medical circumstances, had been treated more favourably.
The tribunal dismissed all of her claims. The judge concluded that the employer had acted appropriately once it became aware of her medical condition and had taken reasonable steps to support her. The tribunal also found that the comparison with her partner was not valid because their circumstances, medical conditions and workplace requirements were materially different.
What Can Employers Learn From This?
This case demonstrates that employers are not expected to provide every adjustment an employee requests. Instead, they are expected to take reasonable steps, consider medical evidence, assess risks, and make informed decisions based on the circumstances.
Perhaps most importantly, the employer was able to show evidence of:
- Occupational health involvement.
- Ongoing risk assessments.
- Consideration of alternative roles and work locations.
- Communication with the employee.
- Decisions based on medical advice rather than assumptions.
For HR teams and managers, the key message is clear: when health issues arise, seek appropriate medical advice, document every step of the process, and be able to demonstrate how decisions were reached. Good intentions are important, but thorough records are often what make the difference when defending a claim.
The lesson? A well-documented adjustment process, supported by medical evidence and clear communication, remains one of the strongest protections an employer can have when managing complex workplace health situations.