Reasonable adjustments have long been a focal point for discussion for employers with employees who are protected under the Equality Act 2010 by virtue of a disability. The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of AECOM Ltd v Mallon, [2023] EAT 104 highlights the responsibility on employers to make reasonable adjustments for applicants for employment.
In this case Mr Mallon, who has dyspraxia, applied for a position with AECOM (who he had previously worked for but was dismissed during his probationary period) but faced difficulties using the standardised online application form, which required applicants to create a username and password in order to submit their application. He therefore emailed the HR department at AECOM explaining that he had dyspraxia and asked if he could submit his application orally rather than in writing due to his disability. The HR manager at AECOM responded to Mr Mallon to reiterate that he would need to complete his application via the online form, but noted that he should let them know if he was having difficulty with this. Mr Mallon did not explicitly state that he was unable create a username and password although he continued to inform AECOM that he would be happy to complete the application over the phone. No telephone alternative was offered to Mr Mallon, and he was ultimately unsuccessful in his application.
Following this, Mr Mallon submitted a claim to the Employment Tribunal stating that AECOM had failed to make reasonable adjustments in relation to his job application which was upheld at the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that AECOM applying a blanket approach to its application process put Mr Mallon (and others with dyspraxia) at a substantial disadvantage compared to others and that, although it did not have “actual” knowledge of Mr Mallon’s disadvantage (i.e. how his dyspraxia specifically disadvantaged him in the application process), it had “constructive” knowledge as it ought to have known that he faced a disadvantage due to his disability.
Further, the Tribunal noted that, if AECOM required additional information about Mr Mallon’s disability it should have made reasonable enquiries by telephoning him as requested rather than expecting him to respond to emails.
AECOM appealed the Tribunal’s decision on a number of points; however, the EAT upheld the original decision, in relation to reasonable adjustments, and reiterated that AECOM ought to have known about Mr Mallon’s difficulties with accessing the online form and that there was no good reason for failing to speak to him on the phone.
The EAT allowed AECOM’s appeal on a separate point which has been remitted back to the same Tribunal for reconsideration.
Key Takeaways for Employers
Employers should always be particularly cautious and make enquiries if a job applicant states that they have a disability in order to fully understand their legal obligations in relation to reasonable adjustments. In doing so, employers should adopt a proactive approach to reasonable adjustments which, depending on the particular disability, could involve considering what method of communication to use and whether this should be adjusted to mitigate any disadvantage which persons with a particular disability might suffer.