Discrimination Claim: Sainsbury’s Manager With Disability Wins £32,000

Published : March 9, 2026

A recent discrimination claim involving supermarket giant Sainsbury’s highlights the legal protections available to workers with disabilities in the UK. The employment tribunal found that the company discriminated against a manager suffering from ankylosing spondylitis. The employer also treated him unfavourably because of his disability-related absence and failed to make reasonable adjustments.

The case, Mr R J Taylor v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, demonstrates how employers must manage disability-related absence and ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010. It also provides important guidance for employees who may be considering a similar claim.

This article explains what happened in the case, the tribunal’s findings, and the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments. It also examines what employees can do if they believe they have been subjected to disability discrimination.

If you want help with your own case, consider contacting Redmans Solicitors. Our team are experts in the employment sector. Following a brief chat, we can analyse your circumstances, provide specialist advice, and guide those eligible through the legal process.

To get started, simply:

The Facts in Mr R J Taylor v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd

Background to the Discrimination Claim

Mr Ricky Taylor (“the Claimant”) worked for Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd (“the Respondent”) as a trading shift manager. During his employment, he developed ankylosing spondylitis, a long-term inflammatory condition that affects the spine and joints. The condition can cause significant pain, stiffness and fatigue, and symptoms can fluctuate over time. Individuals living with ankylosing spondylitis may experience difficulties with prolonged standing, physically demanding work, or long and irregular working hours.

Read More: Employee Dismissed for Checking Medical Records Awarded Almost £300,000 in Compensation

As the Claimant’s condition developed, he experienced periods of absence related to his disability. Despite being aware of his condition, though, the Respondent applied its standard absence management procedures, disregarding appropriate adjustments. A number of issues subsequently arose during this period.

For starters, the Respondent treated the Claimant’s disability-related absences under its standard attendance policy and subsequently issued him a formal written warning. The warning affected his eligibility for a performance-related bonus. Concerns were also raised about his ability to work additional hours, with the Respondent determining that he hadn’t passed his probation. This was partly because of these attendance issues. The Claimant then received statutory sick pay rather than company sick pay during a period of illness, despite his belief that he was contractually entitled to the latter.

Taken together, these issues caused the Claimant to eventually resign from his position. He argued that the Respondent’s handling of his disability and related absence had fundamentally damaged the employment relationship.

Following his resignation, the Claimant brought a number of claims in the employment tribunal. These included claims for discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and constructive unfair dismissal. He also brought a claim for unlawful deduction of wages.

The Tribunal’s Findings in the Discrimination Claim

The employment tribunal largely found in the Claimant’s favour and concluded that the Respondent had acted unlawfully in several respects.

Discrimination Arising From Disability

The tribunal determined that the Claimant had been treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his disability. The unfavourable treatment he experienced stemmed from the Respondent’s response to his disability-related absence and the limitations his condition caused.

The Respondent had handled the Claimant’s absences through the standard process, issued a written warning, and reduced his bonus. Furthermore, concerns about his ability to work additional hours were considered when assessing whether he had passed his probation.

Under the Equality Act 2010, such treatment may amount to discrimination arising from disability unless the employer can demonstrate that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The tribunal concluded that the Respondent had not demonstrated that its actions were justified in the circumstances.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments

The tribunal also found that the Respondent had failed to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments.

When they know of, or ought to have known of, an employee’s condition, employers are required to take reasonable steps when a disabled employee is placed at a substantial disadvantage in their role. In this case, the tribunal found that applying the standard absence policy without adjustment placed the Claimant at a disadvantage compared with non-disabled employees.

The tribunal also found that the Respondent should have considered adjusting the Claimant’s working arrangements so that he was not expected to work additional hours beyond his contracted schedule. These failures meant that the Respondent had not fulfilled its legal obligation to take reasonable steps to accommodate the Claimant’s disability.

Constructive Unfair Dismissal

The tribunal further concluded that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence that exists in every employment contract.

Because of the way the Claimant had been treated, the tribunal determined that he had been entitled to resign and treat himself as constructively dismissed. His resignation was therefore considered to be a constructive unfair dismissal.

Unlawful Deduction of Wages

In addition to the discrimination claims, the tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction of wages by paying statutory sick pay rather than company sick pay during a relevant period of absence.

Read More: Record High Zero-Hours Workers Despite Pending Crackdown

The tribunal concluded that the Claimant had been entitled to company sick pay once his entitlement refreshed in May 2023. The failure to pay this entitlement, therefore, constituted an unlawful deduction.

Compensation Awarded in the Discrimination Claim

Despite his direct disability claims proving unsuccessful, the Claimant was awarded approximately £32,000 in compensation for the rest. The award reflected financial losses associated with the discrimination and dismissal, as well as other elements of compensation available under employment law.

Understanding Ankylosing Spondylitis in the Workplace

Ankylosing spondylitis is a chronic inflammatory condition that primarily affects the spine and joints. Symptoms can include persistent back pain, stiffness, fatigue and reduced mobility. In some cases, the condition may flare up intermittently, causing periods of increased discomfort and functional limitation.

From an employment perspective, the condition may make certain workplace tasks more difficult. For example, prolonged standing, physically demanding work, or long shifts may worsen symptoms. Employees may also experience periods where their condition temporarily prevents them from working.

Under the Equality Act 2010, a person may be considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Conditions such as ankylosing spondylitis can fall within this definition, where the symptoms have a significant and lasting impact.

Read More: Age Discrimination at Work: PwC £150k Settlement Explained

Where an employee meets the legal definition of disability, they are protected from discrimination and are entitled to reasonable adjustments in the workplace.

The Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments

One of the key protections available to disabled employees is the duty placed on employers to make reasonable adjustments.

This duty arises where a disabled employee is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled colleagues because of a workplace policy, a physical feature of the workplace, or the absence of appropriate support. In such circumstances, employers must take reasonable steps to remove or reduce that disadvantage.

Adjustments will depend on the nature of the employee’s role and the impact of their disability. In many workplaces, reasonable adjustments may involve changes to working practices or policies. For example, employers may need to alter working hours or shift patterns so that an employee is not required to work beyond their contracted hours. Employers may also need to modify absence management triggers where absences are related to a disability.

Other adjustments may include allowing flexible working arrangements, providing specialist equipment or seating, introducing additional rest breaks, or adjusting job duties where appropriate.

Importantly, the duty to make reasonable adjustments is proactive. Once an employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that an employee has a disability, the employer should consider whether adjustments are required to prevent the employee from being placed at a disadvantage.

Failure to make reasonable adjustments can form the basis of a discrimination claim in the employment tribunal.

Discrimination Arising From Disability

The Taylor case also highlights the legal concept of discrimination arising from disability, which is distinct from direct disability discrimination.

This form of discrimination occurs where an employee is treated unfavourably because of something that arises as a consequence of their disability. The focus is therefore on the consequences of the disability rather than the disability itself.

In employment settings, this can arise in several ways. For example, an employee may be disciplined because of disability-related absence, or an employer may reduce pay or bonuses because a medical condition has affected performance. In other cases, employees may face dismissal because their condition limits the type of work they can perform.

Such treatment will only be lawful if the employer can show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This requires employers to carefully consider whether there are alternative measures that would reduce the disadvantage experienced by the employee.

What Individuals Can Do if They Face Disability Discrimination

Employees who believe they have been treated unfairly because of a disability have a number of potential options available to them.

  1. Raise the issue internally. In many cases, it may be appropriate to raise concerns with the employer in the first instance. This could involve discussing the matter with a manager or HR department, requesting reasonable adjustments, or submitting a formal grievance.

  2. Seek medical evidence. Medical documentation can be helpful in demonstrating how a condition affects an employee’s ability to work. Evidence may include reports from a GP, specialist or occupational health adviser.

  3. Obtain legal advice. Employment law relating to disability discrimination can be complex. Seeking specialist legal advice can help individuals understand whether they may have a viable discrimination claim and what steps they should take.

  4. Bring a claim in the employment tribunal. If the issue cannot be resolved internally, an employee may bring a claim before an employment tribunal. Before doing so, individuals are usually required to begin ACAS Early Conciliation in an attempt to resolve the dispute without formal proceedings.

In most cases, tribunal claims for discrimination must be brought within three months less one day from the date of the discriminatory act.

Discrimination Claim: Our Final Thoughts

The case of Mr R J Taylor v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd demonstrates the importance of employers properly managing disability-related issues in the workplace. The tribunal found that the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments, had discriminated against the employee because of disability-related absence, and had breached the employment contract in a way that led to constructive dismissal. As a result, Mr Taylor succeeded in his discrimination claim and was awarded compensation of approximately £32,000.

For employers, the decision highlights the need to carefully consider how workplace policies affect disabled employees and to ensure that appropriate adjustments are made where necessary. For employees, the case illustrates the legal protections that exist where employers fail to treat disability fairly.

Individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination arising from disability or a failure to make reasonable adjustments may wish to seek legal advice to understand their rights and potential remedies.

Get Help with Your Own Discrimination Claim

If you’ve experienced any type of disability discrimination and want expert legal help, contact Redmans Solicitors. As employment specialists, we can provide the answers you’re looking for and discuss how you can proceed.

It only takes a moment to get started, simply:

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