Tribunal: Law firm acted reasonably
It was reasonable for a London law firm to raise the possibility of a disabled secretary who worked from home spending two days a week in the office, an employment tribunal has ruled.
This was particularly so as the reasons given by Yolanda Pemberton for not going into the office did not relate to her disability.
The tribunal rejected her claims of discrimination, failures to make reasonable adjustments, harassment and victimisation against RBG Legal Services, part of the listed law firm that operates through Memery Crystal (where she worked) and Rosenblatt.
Employment Judge Segal KC said all three members of the tribunal “concluded without hesitation” that RBG “had attempted to support” Ms Pemberton and “accommodate the effects of her disability as best they could” over a three-year period.
“There was no occasion on which they did not seek medical or other specialist advice when that was indicated and there was no occasion where they did not follow and implement that advice when received.”
The tribunal heard that Ms Pemberton, a secretary in the real estate department, suffered from seronegative rheumatoid arthritis.
The “most significant relevant symptom” of the condition was pain in the hands, particularly the right hand, “brought on inter alia by typing and repetitive mouse clicking”.
Ms Pemberton was part of a team of three secretaries working for 20 fee-earners. The claim was focused on the period from July 2020 to July 2023, for a considerable part of which she was either not working or on reduced hours.
After a period of furlough, in August 2020 it was agreed that Ms Pemberton would work from home and a bespoke chair and mouse transported to her house.
Following a remote workplace assessment, Ms Pemberton was given an office laptop with dictation software installed, along with a “light-touch keyboard, a footrest and a large monitor”.
In August 2021, Ms Pemberton was exempted when all other members of the team were asked to move to hybrid working and spend two days a week in the office.
Another workplace assessment and a publicly funded Access to Work report saw further alterations to support her working from home.
Ms Pemberton was on sick leave from the end of January 2022 until she returned briefly in November before working again in December and agreeing to a “reduced working pattern” in January 2023.
There was a formal capability meeting in February 2023, with a phased return to work. That went well and, at a meeting in April 2023, the possibility of Ms Pemberton working in the office two days a week was raised.
According to the tribunal, she told HR that she was immune-suppressed and, being from an ethnic minority, was disproportionately affected by Covid.
“However, at one point during the meeting, C said there was no physical impediment to her working from the office, but she would expect an up to date risk assessment to be done.”
Following the meeting, Ms Pemberton queried the need for secretaries to work from the office but the tribunal said it was “self-evident… that it is more convenient for fee-earners if legal secretaries work at least a significant proportion of their time from the office”.
It accepted evidence from Daniel Abrahams, a partner who was “in effect” Ms Pemberton’s boss, that he “had modified his own working habits”, partly to accommodate her reduced capacity – including working longer hours – as he took on administrative tasks instead of fee-earning.
Eventually, Ms Pemberton launched her claim but the tribunal rejected her various complaints.
It said the focus was on what Ms Pemberton considered the firm’s “unfair expectation”, in particular from April 2023, that she work some days from the office unless there was a good reason why she should not.
Her stance at the April 2023 meeting and thereafter was “neither clear not cooperative”, Judge Segal said.
“C [Ms Pemberton] might have said (as she told the tribunal) that she had no objection to working some days from the office provided the relevant equipment was in place (so as to duplicate in effect her home office) and provided that the hybrid working policy was being applied to her in the same way as to others.
“Instead, she rather conveyed that [RBG] should not be applying its hybrid working policy to her at all because of an immune-suppressed condition which she did not evidence and which (in so far as it exists – and even at the tribunal hearing there was no clear evidence about this) C told us did not prevent her working from the office.”
RBG therefore acted “reasonably” in exploring whether she could work two days a week from the office and in the way it responded to Ms Pemberton’s position on it.
“No reasonable tribunal could conclude that R’s actions in this regard were because of C’s disability or because of anything arising from it.”
Leave a Comment