The Department for Work and Pensions treated an autistic work coach unfavourably and failed to make reasonable adjustments for him.
An employment tribunal heard that staff at the government department, including his line manager, treated claimant Mr Jarvis unfavourably during a meeting that resulted in him submitting his resignation.
One employee asked Jarvis what “type of autism” he had and what medication he took – questions the tribunal felt were offensive and ignorant – while the claimant’s line manager, Ms Ward, was found to have led the meeting in an “aggressive” way that suggested she was “exasperated” by his disability.
Autism and reasonable adjustments
Government launches new disability guide with CIPD
Rentokil Initial loses appeal in reasonable adjustments case
Bus driver with Crohn’s disease who soiled himself at work wins £28k
Jarvis began working for the DWP as a work coach on a 12-month fixed-term contract in January 2021. The job description suggested he would be required to use a range of IT systems and should feel confident using digital tools.
Jarvis struggled in training sessions around the DWP’s ‘Build’ IT system. He told managers that he would experience “shutdowns” where he would be unable to take in the information. He had been in touch with his GP, who referred him for an autism assessment, but he had been warned there could be a lengthy wait for a diagnosis.
An occupational health report suggested that he would need reasonable adjustments to his role until the autism assessment could be carried out. It said the organisation should consider different learning styles to avoid overloading him.
The DWP arranged a workplace needs assessment which recommended one-on-one coaching and support. One coaching session resulted in him having a “meltdown” when information was brought up on the Build software ahead of a telephone call with a customer.
In April 2021, Jarvis requested work that did not involve a computer. It was agreed that he could review CVs, with no customer contact, and the rest of the team were told to send their CVs to him. This task represented around 5% of a work coach’s usual role, the DWP said.
In a probation meeting in May 2021, Jarvis said he did not feel the work coach role was possible. Ward suggested he would need to resume the Build training as it was a requirement for passing his probation, but he refused this. She also said there were other internal roles, and the DWP has a “job carving” policy that endeavours to find alternative roles for people with disabilities, but she stressed that moves for people on fixed-term contracts were very usual and his lack of formal autism diagnosis made the process more difficult.
Ward sought advice from her line manager, who felt the correct decision would be to terminate Jarvis’ employment at the end of his probationary period. Jarvis was invited to a meeting to discuss this in June 2021, but he requested that the meeting be postponed so he could find somebody to accompany him. The meeting was cancelled and never rearranged, and Jarvis received a letter dismissing him in July 2021.
Jarvis’s appeal against his dismissal was upheld and his probation was extended to October 2021. A plan was put in place to enable him to complete his work coach training, but Jarvis was signed off work with stress in August 2021.
Alternative roles considered
Without explanation, while he was off sick, Jarvis received a letter in October 2021 that said he had passed his probation. Ward then sent him several vacancies for alternative roles within DWP and he was invited to discuss them, however the meeting clashed with his long-awaited autism assessment.
Jarvis requested for the meeting to be rearranged and asked whether he could bring someone to support him, to which Ward said he could only bring a colleague or trade union representative, however after he received a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in December 2021 it was agreed he could bring a representative from a specialist organisation.
He was also encouraged to apply for permanent employment, which would allow him to be considered for other roles in DWP.
The final meeting took place in March 2021. Notes presented to the tribunal showed that Ward had “shut down” questions from Jarvis about whether he would have to use Build in the alternative roles, telling him “It is for me to structure the interview to see how we can get you back to work”. She also asked him what systems he thought he would be using when he applied for the role – a question that the tribunal said was “clearly an aggressive approach”.
A colleague, Ms Rush, asked, “Can you tell me for the notes what type of autism you have and any medication you take for it?”, which Jarvis declined to answer.
The tribunal’s judgment says: “We make the observation that this is an offensive and ignorant question. It is posed by the so called minute taker. We note Ms Ward does not step in to intervene.”
Rush later interrupted Jarvis to state she was 10 minutes late for her next meeting and asked him to email his questions instead.
Resignation
Jarvis resigned soon after the meeting in a letter that stated: “I had hoped that our recent meeting would be a positive one, but in fact the opposite was the case. I felt that I was not being listened to, that I was a nuisance and that you had no interest in exploring what could be done to enable me, as a disabled person, get back to work.”
The employment tribunal upheld Jarvis’ claims for unfavourable treatment and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Employment judge Warren found that not applying the job carving policy during Jarvis’ probation put him at a disadvantage and amounted to a failure to make a reasonable adjustment.
The judge suggested this process would have likely resulted in Jarvis being given a position where he could focus solely on reviewing CVs, or he could have utilised his skills and experience in working with people with learning difficulties as he had done before working for the DWP.
It had also failed to make an adjustment when it initially did not allow Jarvis to bring a person of his choice into a meeting.
Compensation will be decided in a hearing in July.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
The Department for Work and Pensions declined to comment.
