If your employer manages your sick leave using an automatic “trigger point,” that trigger point has to be adjusted for your disability too.
“Tribunal found a reasonable-adjustments failure and disability harassmentUnwanted behaviour related to a protected characteristic, such as your sex, race, disability, age or religion, that violates your dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile or humiliating environment..., but dismissed nearly every other claim.”
Your employer's sickness-absence policy can itself be something they are legally required to adjust for your disability.
- If you are disabled and your sickness absence is linked to that disability, ask your employer directly whether your attendance "trigger points" have been adjusted, and put the request in writing.
- A comment about your disability does not need to be meant cruelly to be unlawful harassment, but a record of what was said and how it affected you will matter if you ever need to prove it.
- If most of your situation feels hard to prove, do not give up on the parts that are not. Get advice on the specific, provable points rather than treating the whole case as a lost cause.
The situation
An employee working as a work coach at the Department for Work and Pensions was disabled by arthritis in her knee, hand and neck, and later by PTSD. Her employer's absence policy set a "trigger point": once an employee reached a set number of sickness absences, they were required to attend a formal attendance meeting. The policy allowed managers to adjust that trigger point for disabled staff, but her managers never did, despite knowing she had a mental health disability for over a year. Separately, a colleague sat in her new adjustable desk chair and joked that she felt like Stephen Hawking, "the one that has to speak through his throat," while pulling faces.
What the tribunal found
The tribunal dismissed almost everything this employee claimed. Her direct discrimination claims failed. Her claim that she was treated unfavourably because of something arising from her disability, under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010The main piece of legislation protecting employees from discrimination at work. It covers nine protected characteristics including age, disability, sex, race, and religion, and makes it unlawful for a..., failed. Her victimisationBeing treated badly because you've raised a complaint, supported someone else's complaint, or done something else the law protects, such as raising a grievance or whistleblowing. It is unlawful in its... claims failed. Her unfair dismissalA legal claim you can bring if your employer dismissed you without a fair reason or without following a fair process. You normally need two years of continuous employment to qualify, though some dismi... claim failed too. But two specific findings went in her favour.
DWP failed to make the reasonable adjustmentsChanges an employer must make under the Equality Act 2010 for a disabled employee, where without them the employee would be at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled colleagues. What coun... required of it under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010. The employer's own policy allowed the trigger pointA trigger point is a set number of sickness absences or days off that automatically starts your employer's formal attendance management process, such as a review meeting or a warning. If you're disabl... to be adjusted for disabled staff. It never adjusted hers. The tribunal said doing so would have removed part of the stress she experienced from the risk of facing formal action over disability-related absence.
Second, the tribunal found the Stephen Hawking comment amounted to disability-related harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted the colleague did not mean to cause offence and that most people would not have found the remark offensive. It still found the comment drew attention to her disability and offended her dignity, and that it was reasonable, in her particular circumstances, to treat it as harassment.
McRobbie v Department for Work and Pensions. ET Case No. 1403286/2022 and Others. Employment Tribunal. 23 April 2026.