Autistic Peloton Employee Wins Reasonable Adjustments Case After Company Exposes Him to Unsuitable Sensory Environments

Published : May 14, 2025

In Mr C Saunders v Peloton Interactive UK Limited, an autistic Peloton employee succeeded in his claim after the tribunal discovered his employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments. Mr Saunders, who is autistic and has depression and ADHD, was subjected to an overwhelming sensory environment and resigned after inadequate support.

Below, we examine the facts of the case and the judgment of the employment tribunal. If you have any questions about reasonable adjustments at work or believe your rights have been breached, contact us today. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists, and following a consultation, we can answer your queries and discuss your possible options.

To learn how we can help you now, simply:

The Facts in Mr C Saunders v Peloton Interactive UK Limited

Autistic Peloton Employee Claim Background

Mr C Saunders (“the Claimant”) began working as a part-time member experience associate for fitness giant Peloton Interactive UK Limited (“the Respondent”) on 6 June 2022. His duties included greeting and serving members and getting them into classes. Owing to his autism, the Claimant requested some workplace adjustments at the beginning of his employment, including not travelling during rush hour and wearing sunglasses indoors, which the Respondent accepted.

When the Claimant initially started his role, the Respondent was in a “pre-opening period.” This meant few customers attended, the office spaces were quiet, and he generally had no issues. 

By August, the Claimant became a part-time studio concierge and received a pay rise. The Respondent held a big opening event that same month, which involved large crowds and high energy. Unfortunately, shortly after the opening, the Claimant went on sick leave and was diagnosed with depression. He then started to become overwhelmed and suffer from sensory overload over the following months.

Mounting Strain as Work Environment Deteriorates

To cope with the effects at work, the autistic Peloton employee regularly took spontaneous and unplanned 20-minute recovery breaks. His colleagues provided cover in his absence, but this allowed problems to arise in his team.

To make matters worse, the Respondent’s studio became increasingly crowded over time. Customer numbers grew, content production intensified, and the environment was deliberately engineered to be “highly stimulating.” Public areas were filled with strong fragrances, intense lighting, and loud pop music, all designed to excite customers and maintain a high-energy atmosphere for recorded classes used in promotional material.

With issues growing in his team, the Claimant was called into a meeting on 25 November by Ms Rebecca Watson, his line manager. Issues with customer service and absences while on shift were discussed, but the Claimant walked off unhappy before the meeting was done. It was only after the meeting that Ms Watson learned he was autistic.

Five days later, the Claimant was provided an Occupational Health (OH) form and informed that he would be allowed 15-minute breaks each hour. Ms Watson also told him that he would be given 24 hours’ notice of any future meetings, and that she’d look for other potentially more suitable roles for him. Unfortunately, the planned breaks didn’t materialise, which was difficult for the Claimant due to his disabilities and affected his ability to undertake his duties.

Autistic Peloton Employee Raises Concerns Amid Restructuring and Pay Cut

On 14 December, Ms Watson emailed HR about the “tricky situation” involving the Claimant. She said that he was underperforming, communication was poor, and that team morale was significantly impacted.

Then, on 16 December, the Claimant emailed Ms Watson complaining about his working arrangement. He claimed his colleagues were being assigned non-customer-facing roles more often and alleged favouritism was at play. He added that his autism made greeting customers more difficult and that his arranged breaks weren’t being implemented.

By the end of the month, the Respondent received the Claimant’s OH report. The report advised that he be referred to an OH physician and that redeployment into a more suitable role be considered. This was largely down to his disability, which included hypersensitivity to noise and light, and challenges with attention, memory, and problem-solving.

On 5 January 2023, though, the Respondent decided to undertake a restructuring. Following a conversation with Ms Watson, the autistic Peloton employee agreed to return to a member experience role. The thinking behind this was that it was supposedly less customer-facing, making it more suitable for the Claimant.

The problem was that this meant the Claimant had to take a pay cut. He initially believed his pay would be protected, but after a meeting on 19 January, he discovered this wasn’t true. No notice was provided before the meeting, and the Claimant felt pressured to accept the reduction. He formally accepted this new role six days later, with a start date of 7 February.

Adjustment Requests Overlooked as Challenges Escalate in New Role

Before the Claimant commenced his new role, he didn’t sign his updated contract, and on 6 February, he requested various workplace adjustments. He asked for a 15-minute break after an hour in meetings, and another after 90 minutes in public-facing areas (to be scheduled in advance). He also requested a fixed work schedule, financial help to buy noise-cancelling headphones, and to keep his higher pay rate.

Unfortunately, since these requests were only made the day before his new role began, he was assigned shifts outside the desired schedule. Compounding the situation, the autistic Peloton employee worked a disproportionate amount of time facing customers the following week.

Discussions were later held concerning the requested adjustments, but by 20 February, the Claimant raised his first grievance. Essentially, he reiterated earlier complaints about not getting 15-minute breaks or advance notice before meetings.

A further meeting was subsequently held two days later to discuss both reasonable adjustments at work and the grievance. The Claimant also informed the Respondent that he believed he had ADHD and requested funding for an assessment. After measures were implemented, the Claimant withdrew his grievance, and, on 10 March, he signed his contract on the lower pay rate.

Yet, things again took a turn. A reshuffle of the Respondent’s working environment meant the Claimant’s planned breaks stopped being scheduled. He was told by his new manager, Mr Wayne Rodgers, that he would have to plan his breaks and inform his team at the start of each shift.

But this was deeply challenging for the Claimant. He was essentially having to negotiate with his team daily, something he found incredibly difficult with his autism. The result? Breaks were missed, “truncated,” or not properly timed.

Grievance Outcome Disappoints Autistic Peloton Employee

The Claimant was formally diagnosed with ADHD in April. He had applied for two roles since the reshuffle, one as a team leader and the other as a concierge (the role he had previously held), but he was rejected each time.

As a result, on 8 May, he raised his second grievance. This time, the Claimant asked to be removed from his front-of-house duties and redeployed elsewhere. Among other things, he cited ongoing sensory overload, lack of support in his role, and delays in OH adjustments.

The Respondent acknowledged this grievance on 12 May, and an investigation meeting took place six days later. The Claimant again voiced his concerns during the meeting before going on sick leave until the end of the month. Upon his return, he told Mr Rodgers about his ADHD diagnosis and again asked to be moved into a less customer-facing role.

When the Claimant returned, Mr Rodgers ensured he was customer-facing as little as possible. New fixed shifts were implemented, colleagues were moved into the Claimant’s team to limit his customer-facing duties, and he wasn’t put at the desk during the Respondent’s busiest periods.

Unfortunately, this progress was undermined on 9 June, when the autistic Peloton employee received the outcome of his grievance. While it was agreed he would be referred to an OH physician, the Respondent couldn’t reallocate his customer-facing duties. It explained this was because his role was “fundamentally” a public-facing one. Consequently, having been left feeling dissatisfied, the Claimant contacted Acas for early conciliation that same day.

Resignation Follows Failed Grievance Appeal

On 13 June, the Claimant appealed the outcome of his grievance, and by the end of the month, he finally attended the OH physician appointment. Here, his ADHD diagnosis was confirmed, and several reasonable adjustments for ADHD were recommended.

By 12 July, the Claimant’s Acas early conciliation certificate was issued, and on 21 July, he submitted his claims. Four days later, he received the outcome of his grievance appeal, but, much to his disappointment, this wasn’t upheld.

Having exhausted all available options and feeling unable to continue, the autistic Peloton employee resigned on 27 July. He then pursued his employment tribunal claims, which included direct and indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal considered the Claimant’s case. With regard to a failure to make reasonable adjustments, it outlined that these are changes an employer must make to remove barriers faced by disabled employees at work.

Crucially, this duty arises when an employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that someone is disabled. It also applies if a disabled person requests adjustments, struggles with aspects of their role, or experiences absences or delays in returning to work due to their disability. If the adjustments are deemed reasonable, the employer is legally required to implement them.

Tribunal’s Findings on Reasonable Adjustments

The tribunal explained that while not all of the adjustments listed by the Claimant were applicable, the following were:

Rest Breaks

The tribunal held that the autistic Peloton employee required scheduled rest breaks to help cope with the high sensory stimuli at work. It explained that the Respondent was aware of this need since the Claimant had frequently brought it up.

Despite this, it found the Respondent had failed to schedule them consistently. While the Claimant was able to negotiate his own, the tribunal deemed this inappropriate due to his autism.

With regard to the reasonableness of the adjustment in question, factors including practicality, costs, and effectiveness were considered. The tribunal ruled that this adjustment was practical (since it had already been implemented at times), of little cost to the Respondent, and potentially effective. With this in mind, the tribunal held that this adjustment should have been implemented.

Work in Public-Facing Areas

The tribunal stated that the Claimant would be substantially disadvantaged working in public-facing roles due to his disability. It added that the Respondent knew this since, again, he’d told them on numerous occasions. Nevertheless, the tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to remove him from a public-facing role.

Following considerations into the reasonableness of said adjustment, the tribunal held that there should’ve been “a trial period of up to two months in which the Claimant worked only away from public-facing areas.” It added that a dedicated desk and noise-cancelling headphones should have also been implemented. Once the trial period was up, the Tribunal said the Respondent should have carried out a formal review in good faith to determine whether the arrangement could have been made permanent.

Reasonable Adjustments Claim Succeeds, Rest Dismissed

Since the Tribunal found that the Respondent should have made the above autism and ADHD workplace adjustments but didn’t, it upheld the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim.

Despite this, the rest of the claims brought by the autistic Peloton employee, including direct discrimination and harassment, were dismissed. While the tribunal ruled the Claimant clearly felt impacted by the Respondent’s actions, it stated there was insufficient evidence to show he was treated less favourably due to his disabilities. The case will now proceed to a remedy hearing to determine his compensation.

Get Help With Redmans

If you have faced something similar to the autistic Peloton employee, get in touch with Redmans Solicitors. Our team of employment law specialists are here to help. Following a quick chat, we can answer your queries and discuss your possible next steps. All you have to do to get started is:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.