Hot desking policies can often be a source of requests for reasonable adjustments, but in a recent case a disabled worker alleged that being asked to move desks amounted to disability related harassment.
In McGrath v Bupa Insurance Services Limited, the claimant was disabled by virtue of ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, dyslexia and depression. His employer operated a hot desking policy. Desks could be booked using an online system. Generally, people and teams sat in the same place or area, although seats could not normally be block booked for extended periods.
The claimant preferred to sit in a quieter part of the office near an area referred to as the Academy, where new staff underwent training. He almost always worked in the office rather than from home. Initially, after Covid, it was easy to book a specific desk. If someone sat at the claimant's preferred desk, either he or his manager asked the person to move.
In March 2023, a manager became aware that the volume at which the claimant was speaking was disturbing the trainees. The claimant was asked to sit further away from the Academy, which he did. However, the following week he returned to the original desk. When asked again to move, he did not do so. No further action was taken by the manager.
Several further incidents occurred where someone else sat in the claimant's preferred seat. The claimant was reminded that he could simply ask the person to move, but it was only after he resigned that the employer took steps to reserve the seat for him permanently.
The claimant subsequently brought multiple claims for disability discrimination, victimisation and harassment, and constructive unfair dismissal. These mainly related to issues other than the seating arrangements. However, the claimant did argue that the request for him to move from his usual seat beside the Academy amounted to harassment related to disability.
Tribunal judgment
The claim of disability related harassment was unsuccessful. This was because the reason the claimant was asked to move was not related to his disability, but to the volume at which he was speaking on the phone and the manager's concern that he was distracting others. The tribunal also stated that, even if it had found the request related to the disability, it did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating a hostile environment.
Commentary
There may have been a point during the course of this matter when the claimant could have argued that the hot desking policy should be adjusted to provide him with a fixed seating arrangement. However, that was not a claim he advanced before the tribunal.
In this instance, the tribunal was able to conclude fairly easily that disability related harassment had not occurred. Nevertheless, employers should remember that reasonable adjustment claims are not the only risk when operating a hot desking system. Whether or not a formal adjustment has been made to the policy for a disabled employee, any changes to seating arrangements should be handled sensitively, ideally communicated privately and supported with a clear explanation of the reason for the change.
