Case on reasonable adjustments in call centre
In Tait v Holiday Extras, the claimant had various disabilities, mostly mental. She worked in a call centre. This dealt mainly with voice calls, but also chat and email. An employment tribunal upheld many of her claims for reasonable adjustments. For example she could feel overwhelmed by too many voice calls, and the tribunal held that in all the circumstances, it was a reasonable adjustment to give her a higher proportion of chat/email, and the ability to switch to chat/email if struggling with voice.
The claimant did not have a stammer, but these and some other adjustments discussed by the tribunal could be relevant to stammering. It is not an appeal decision, and so not a binding precedent.
Also added or amended in relation to this case:
- Examples of reasonable adjustments: In the job>Telephone: Case on reallocating duties in call centre
- Examples of reasonable adjustments: In the job>Telephone: Support to help adjust to changes to instructions
- Examples of reasonable adjustments: In the job>Meetings, video conferences and conference calls>Format: video vs audio
- Reasonable adjustment rules: employment>Substantial disadvantage>Hiding the disability.
2026 Services Code of Practice
A new Services, public functions and associations: Statutory Code of Practice (EHRC website) has been issued by the EHRC. It took effect on 5th August 2026. See Services Code of Practice 2026.
I will be updating the relevant parts of this website for the revised Services Code of Practice. Updated so far:
- Reasonable adjustments by service providers: rules
- Knowledge of disability in anticipatory reasonable adjustment claims
- Ad hoc adjustment duty on service providers?
- Detriment to claimant in anticipatory reasonable adjustment claims
- Examples of adjustments and discrimination: service providers.
M v Joseph Heler: case on stammering
In M v Joseph Heler, the claimant applied for two jobs with the employer, saying in his CV that he had ‘excellent communication skills despite having a stammer’. He was not appointed. He claimed this was because the employer perceived him to have a disability within the EqA. The employment tribunal rejected his claims. He had not shown that the employer perceived his stammer to have a substantial effect on normal day-to-day activities etc. In any event, the employer had presented cogent evidence that the reason he was not appointed had nothing to do with his stammer. His claims for race discrimination and victimisation also failed.
Normally a person claiming under the EqA will argue that their stammer etc is a ‘disability’ within the EqA definition. The claimant here did not. In any event, the tribunal was satisfied that he was not turned down because of his stammer.
Also added Kokomane v Boots Management Services [2025] to my Victimisation page (it was referred in M v Joseph Heler).
Competence standards
Following the Truman decision, new page Competence standards drawing together and updating content from elsewhere on this site.
Also Professional exam bodies page reviewed and updated.
- Previous updates Website updates May to June 2026.
