A drywall contractor withdrew a job offer for a finance director position after the successful applicant submitted requests around their disability, an employment tribunal has found.
Employment judge Sarah Keogh found that Drywall Solutions UK discriminated against I Hajee-Adam by rescinding the offer because it decided “it did not want to make the reasonable adjustments” he had requested.
Drywall’s actions would “reasonably have the effect of causing the claimant significant distress and humiliation”, the tribunal found.
Hajee-Adam brought five claims in March 2020, and the judgment was given on 28 July this year. Two of the claims succeeded, while two others partially succeeded and one was dismissed.
Background to the case
In October 2019, Hajee-Adam was verbally offered the role of finance director, and subsequently sent the firm a number of requests around his disability.
Hajee-Adam had chronic IBS, anxiety and seasonal affective disorder at the time of his application.
The tribunal found that he made a number of requests: that his hours be spread over three days; to start work at around midday; to receive a desk with natural light; and to work no more than 20 hours per week.
Drywall did not object to the requests initially, the tribunal found, but rescinded the job offer on 24 October 2019.
In its letter, the firm said: “Having reflected on the positions our plans for growth meant that we would expect a financial director to be able to give more time to the business as it grows and on reflection we felt that your refusal to be able to work any more than two days, on grounds of your personal wealth, would be detrimental to the business as we grow, and that it would not be worth the investment in time and effort to embark on the employment relationship that ultimately would not grow with the business needs.”
Hajee-Adam alleged that Drywall directly discriminated against him, harassed him and failed to make “reasonable adjustments” to meet his requests.
‘Treated less favourably’
Drywall argued that it had rescinded the job offer due to the “claimant’s attitude” displayed in a further letter sent to the firm, as well as concerns around the lack of flexibility he had displayed concerning the hours he could work.
But the tribunal rejected the claim that it was done because of his lack of flexibility, as the firm already knew he would be available two days a week before they offered him the job.
Moreover, it found that Drywall changed its reasoning for pulling the job offer, first telling Hajee-Adam in October 2019 that it was because it could not meet some of his requests. In November, in a formal letter rescinding the job offer, it pointed instead to the lack of flexibility and “attitude” he had displayed.
The tribunal found that Hajee-Adam was “treated less favourably than someone without the claimant’s disabilities would have been treated”.
It added that Drywall’s reasoning was “inconsistent and […] changed over time”, noting that it was not clear who made the decision to pull the job offer.
“The respondent cannot show that the reason for withdrawing the offer was nothing whatsoever to do with disability,” the tribunal found.
The judge dismissed Hajee-Adam’s claim for direct discrimination, but his claims of disability discrimination and harassment both succeeded. His claims for indirect disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments partially succeeded.
Keogh also addressed the tribunal hearing’s duration, noting that the claim had had a “long and complex procedural history getting to a final hearing, with a number of postponements”.