Autism at Work: How a Wetherspoons Employee Won £25k in the Employment Tribunal

In Mr Brandon Halstead v J D Wetherspoons Plc, a kitchen porter has been awarded more than £25,000, following his employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments for his autism at work. Issues arose after Mr Halstead misunderstood the staff discount policy, leading to a disciplinary process filled with flaws.

Read on as we discuss exactly what happened and the reasoning behind the employment tribunal’s judgment. We then examine what reasonable adjustments can be made for individuals with autism in the workplace and the steps to take if one’s employment rights are breached.

If you’ve experienced similar treatment and want specialist advice, contact Redmans Solicitors without delay. Our team of employment experts is here to help. Following a brief chat, we can discuss your possible options and assess your eligibility to bring a claim.

Learn how we can help you today by:

• Giving us a call on 020 3397 3603
• Requesting a callback via our online form

The Facts in Mr Brandon Halstead v J D Wetherspoons Plc

Autism at Work: Background to the Claimant’s Case

Mr Brandon Halstead (“the Claimant”) began working as a kitchen associate for J D Wetherspoons Plc (“the Respondent”) on 11 May 2019. This was his second stint with the Respondent, having resigned on 1 April 2019 to try a different role, only to return a month later. Notably, and central to the case, the Claimant has autism.

Problems began on 12 August 2023, when the Claimant and his family ate at one of the Respondent’s pubs. There were seven of them, and after ordering through the app and entering his staff discount code, he saved £19.17. Unfortunately, and unbeknownst to the Claimant, the staff discount policy applied only to parties of four or fewer. Since he’d used his code on a group of seven, he was technically in violation.

The Initial Investigation Meeting

Five days later, on 17 August, the Claimant was called into Mr Jamie Law’s office. He was unaware of the meeting’s purpose, having received no prior notice or explanation. Mr Law was the shift manager that day, and from the outset of the meeting, he explained that he wanted to investigate a “potential violation” of the staff discount policy.

During the meeting, however, the Claimant said, “Can I ask what this is about?” The tribunal noted that this demonstrated his lack of awareness of the formal investigation. Nonetheless, Mr Law ignored this request, questioning the Claimant about his understanding of the Respondent’s policy.

Read More: Chef With Dyslexia Who Struggled to Read Food Orders Wins Disability Discrimination Claim

As the meeting progressed, the Claimant confirmed that he’d used his staff discount for a party of over four, and had provided his mother, Ms Halstead, with access to the MyJDW app so that she could see his rota. He didn’t realise that these violated the Respondent’s policies, but as soon as Mr Law told him, he apologised and said his mother would delete the app.

At the meeting’s conclusion, the Claimant informed Mr Law of his autism at work, prompting the completion of a cursory Neurodiversity Plan. The Claimant also insisted that his mother would need to accompany him at any future formal meetings.

A Second Meeting Takes Place

On 25 August, a second investigation meeting occurred. This time, the Claimant’s mother was in attendance and confirmed what had been discussed previously. She explained that she had previously had access to the Respondent’s app to plan her son’s commute to and from work, and that, due to her son’s autism, he wouldn’t have read the Respondent’s policies unless someone had told him to do so.

During the meeting, Ms Halstead also questioned how much Mr Law and other staff knew about autism at work. She didn’t receive an answer, though, being told by Mr Law that he required more time to make a decision. Unfortunately, this only worsened the Claimant’s anxiety; a point which his mother emphasised.

OH Recommends Reasonable Adjustments for Autism at Work

By 31 August, the Respondent sent the Claimant a letter, inviting him to a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct. It cited breaches of its staff discount policy and data protection policy. Yet, the letter wasn’t tailored to the Claimant’s needs, as it neither offered reasonable adjustments nor invited his mother.

When the Claimant received this letter, it only exacerbated his stress and anxiety. His mother replied the same day, informing the Respondent of the “significant impact” the letter had had on her son, stating that he was now on sick leave and attaching a doctor’s note.

Ms Halstead subsequently requested an Occupational Health (OH) report the following day, which the Respondent agreed to, prompting the disciplinary process to be put on hold. An OH assessment was then conducted on 18 September, confirming that the Claimant wasn’t fit to work and that he required his mother to have access to the MyJDW app to assist him, in addition to recommending various reasonable adjustments at work.

A Formal Grievance is Raised

On 23 September, Ms Halstead raised a formal grievance on behalf of her son. This prompted the Respondent to invite the Claimant to a grievance meeting scheduled for 6 October. Yet, issues still arose. Ms Halstead believed two days’ notice wasn’t sufficient and had concerns with how the meeting would impact her son; again, she hadn’t been invited.

The Respondent eventually offered a new grievance meeting date of 24 November, but still failed to provide any workplace adjustments. As such, the Claimant initiated Acas early conciliation on 10 November, before his mother replied four days later, insisting that a “return to work was completely out of the question” due to the Respondent’s conduct.

No grievance meeting subsequently took place, nor did the Respondent ever provide a formal written response. Instead, on 11 December, it invited the Claimant to a “Some Other Substantial Reason (SOSR) hearing,” scheduled for 15 December. This was the first time the Claimant was offered reasonable adjustments at work, including that he could provide written responses to the Respondent’s questions instead of attending the meeting.

The Claimant opted to send written responses, which were provided on 5 January 2024. During proceedings, the tribunal noted that, at this point, the Respondent had finally taken on its responsibility to provide reasonable adjustments for the Claimant’s autism at work.

Claim Brought Despite the Remedied Relationship

As their relationship improved, the Respondent dropped the SOSR process and invited the Claimant to an informal chat with his mother at his old place of work. Ms Halstead agreed to the meeting, which took place on 16 February, and requested a “compensatory gesture” for the previous treatment.

The meeting turned out to be “very successful,” and led to the Claimant’s return to work on 11 April. However, after the Respondent decided not to offer any compensation for the situation that had unfolded, the Claimant initiated employment tribunal proceedings on 19 March. He claimed failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability related harassment.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal first considered the Respondent’s potential failure to make reasonable adjustments. It established that the Respondent knew, or ought to have known, of the Claimant’s disability, yet it:

• Didn’t run through the staff discount policy with him
• Failed to train managers sufficiently on his autism in the workplace
• Didn’t invite his mother to the initial investigation meeting
• Failed to provide workplace adjustments throughout the subsequent process

Combined, these failures substantially disadvantaged the Claimant and left him with “significant stress and anxiety…where [he] was unable to leave his bedroom.” The tribunal held that a series of workplace adjustments could have been made, and had they been implemented, the disadvantage faced would have been mitigated. As a result, this claim was upheld.

Moving on, the tribunal then addressed the claim of harassment related to disability. This primarily concerned the standardised way in which the Respondent undertook its investigation following knowledge of the policy breaches. While the tribunal believed the Respondent should have acknowledged the Claimant’s autism at work and made the necessary changes, it found that this didn’t create an intimidating environment for him, and, thus, didn’t satisfy the threshold for harassment. With this in mind, this claim was dismissed.

Yet, since the Claimant succeeded in his failure to make reasonable adjustments at work claim, he was awarded £25,412. His compensation comprised financial loss, injury to feelings and interest.

What are Reasonable Adjustments at Work for Autism?

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers are required to make reasonable adjustments for individuals who are legally classified as disabled. This can include individuals with autism in the workplace. What counts as “reasonable” will depend on various factors. Employers will consider their available resources, the practicality of implementing specific adjustments, and their effectiveness, among other things.

Read More: Teacher Wins £140k in Compensation for Discrimination

Examples of reasonable adjustments for individuals with autism at work include:

• Autism Awareness: Whereby managers and staff receive training on how to support colleagues with autism.
• Clear Communication: In which instructions are provided clearly and in writing, avoiding any ambiguous language.
• Tailored Working Environments: Where stress is reduced, through quieter spaces, softer lighting, or noise-cancelling equipment.

Notably, the above list isn’t exhaustive and appropriate adjustments will vary depending on the individual and employer. Should an employer fail to provide the necessary adjustments, it could amount to disability discrimination and give rise to a claim. If an individual believes they’ve been denied adjustments they’re entitled to, seeking specialist advice is recommended.

Get Help with Redmans

If you’re dealing with autism at work and believe your employment rights have been breached, contact Redmans Solicitors now. Our team of employment specialists are here to help. Following a brief chat, we can analyse your case, answer your queries and discuss how you could proceed.

It only takes a moment to begin your journey with us, simply:

• Phone us on 020 3397 3603
• Complete our online form to request a consultation