Failure to Provide Reasonable Adjustments at Work Led to £32,000 Award for NHS Trainee

Published : November 5, 2025

In Mrs Yasmin Barron v Medway NHS Foundation Trust, an NHS trainee has been awarded more than £32,000 following her employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments at work. Despite learning of her disabilities and the challenges she faced, the tribunal found her employer failed to take steps to support her before redeploying her in a different role.

In our latest article, we examine precisely what happened and discuss the employment tribunal’s judgment. We then explore how individuals can prove disability discrimination and the steps they can take to seek justice.

If you’ve experienced disability discrimination at work, contact Redmans Solicitors without delay. Our team of employment specialists is here to help, and following a brief consultation, we can provide expert advice.

It only takes a moment to discover how we can help, simply:

The Facts in Mrs Yasmin Barron v Medway NHS Foundation Trust

Background to Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments at Work

Mrs Yasmin Barron (“the Claimant”) worked for Medway NHS Foundation Trust (“the Respondent”) from 7 January 2013. Eight years later, on 25 August 2021, she began working as a trainee accredited clinical coder, undertaking a three-year programme. The training was assessed against specific conditions, whereby individuals who didn’t meet the necessary competencies could face action, including dismissal.

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

For much of the Claimant’s adult life, she had dealt with migraines, depression and anxiety, which were all found to constitute disabilities under the Equality Act 2010. She had previously been successful in managing these conditions. Still, after dealing with “serious situations” involving her family, which occurred only a short time after starting her new role, they worsened. She described during the proceedings how she’d been “in survival mode and just trying to get through each day.”

Performance Management Meeting and Missed Workplace Adjustments

During her training, the Claimant didn’t inform the Respondent of the extent to which she was struggling. She logged “personal issues” in October 2021 but failed to inform management that these were impacting her concentration, motivation, and ability to study.

On 28 July 2022, the Claimant had her appraisal with Ms N Willey, her line manager. Prior to the meeting, Ms Willey met with Mr Chris Carter, the head of clinical coding, where it had been agreed that the Claimant would be “performance managed.” Mr Carter instructed Ms Willey to be “firm,” stating that if the Claimant raised issues, to respond, “we all have issues.”

During the appraisal, the Claimant scored herself the lowest possible score, admitting she’d “struggled significantly” and been underperforming. She was told that she would be performance managed before opening up about her personal challenges and accepting that she should have sought support.

The following day, the Claimant met with Mr Carter. Here, she was run through her performance improvement plan, which commenced on 1 August. Eight days into the plan, she then had a one-to-one with Ms Willey, disclosing her disabilities and how they’d impacted her.

Unfortunately, due to a misunderstanding, Ms Willey incorrectly noted that the Claimant had turned down an Occupational Health (OH) referral. This meant the Claimant didn’t receive any reasonable adjustments at work, which could have helped her overcome the difficulties she faced and succeed. Instead, she was left feeling “shell-shocked,” believing the remaining two weeks in her performance plan weren’t enough to turn things around.

Objective Failures, Grievance, and Continued Performance Pressure

On 12 August, the Claimant learned that she had failed to meet her objectives. She subsequently emailed Mr Carter, stating that she believed the short timescale to satisfy her objectives was unrealistic. She claimed she’d previously requested workplace adjustments and felt that, if she were allowed more time and provided adequate support, she could still succeed. Despite this, Mr Carter replied, stating that he didn’t believe it was possible to change the path they were on.

As a result, on 18 August, the Claimant raised a grievance. Central to her complaint was the fact that her personal circumstances, which had impacted her performance, hadn’t been considered. She also requested that the formal process be halted so she could address her personal issues and recover.

Nonetheless, the Respondent advanced the Claimant’s performance process to a stage two formal meeting the next day. Mr Carter maintained his view that she wasn’t at a “satisfactory level.” This was especially so after he compared her progress to peers who’d received the same or less level of support.

Following discussions, however, it was agreed that the stage two formal process wouldn’t commence for three weeks, until the Claimant’s new medication had time to take effect. The same objectives were set, and she was informed that if she failed to meet them again, redeployment may occur.

Performance Reviews and OH Recommendations for Reasonable Adjustments at Work

On 12 September, the stage two process began. This led to a review meeting on 26 September, and while the Claimant had met some of her objectives, she hadn’t met them all. Mr Carter had planned to redeploy her, but after she appealed to a stage three hearing, she was taken off her performance plan and assigned specific tasks in the meantime. Again, she believed the set objectives were unrealistic and didn’t account for her extenuating circumstances.

After various attempts to see OH, the Claimant eventually saw them on 25 October. This led to various reasonable adjustments at work being recommended. Among them were regular one-to-one well-being checks and the provision for additional time to complete tasks when impacted by her conditions.

Before her stage three meeting, the Claimant submitted her OH report. She asserted that, with the necessary workplace adjustments now identified, and provided she was granted adequate time—which she believed was three months—she would be able to implement the required improvements and catch up.

The stage three meeting then took place on 31 October. And while it was agreed that the Claimant would be provided three months to get back on track, “very stringent competencies” were set, which she “felt she had little scope to object” to.

Ongoing Challenges, Redeployment, and Employment Tribunal Claim

Over the following weeks, the Claimant believed her medication was working and felt that she was in a better place. Despite this, she still wasn’t meeting all of her objectives, leading to a further meeting on 9 January 2023.

In her report, she told the panel how the demanding standards “negated” the purpose of her three-month extension. Rather than alleviating pressure to allow her to catch up, the objectives piled more on, further impacting her performance.

Subsequent to the meeting, the decision of redeployment was communicated to the Claimant on 16 January. She appealed this decision eight days later, but this proved unsuccessful on 3 March.

As a result, the Claimant initiated early conciliation with Acas on 17 May, bringing employment tribunal claims on 23 June. Among them were discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments at work.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal first dealt with the discrimination arising from disability claim. This primarily concerned the Respondent’s failure to suspend the performance action plan while the Claimant was seeking help. Although the tribunal acknowledged the legitimate aim of ensuring trainees met competency requirements, it ruled the Respondent’s conduct was unreasonable.

Mr Carter’s view that the Claimant wouldn’t meet the necessary competencies was based on a period in which she was struggling with her disabilities. For example, during her migraines and depressive episodes, the tribunal described how “she could not work at the same speed or assimilate knowledge as quickly as her peers.”

In the tribunal’s opinion, it wouldn’t have taken that much longer for the Claimant to catch up once she obtained support, but it would have “been much more conducive to her recovery and performance at full capacity.” Since the treatment she endured arose due to the view that she wasn’t capable, which, in turn, resulted from her disabilities, this claim was therefore upheld.

Moving on, the tribunal addressed the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments at work. Under the Equality Act 2010, employers must make reasonable workplace adjustments when they become aware, or ought to have become aware, of an individual’s disability.

After the Claimant disclosed her disabilities, however, no such adjustments were made. Neither were they following OH’s recommendations. In the tribunal’s view, among other things, the Respondent could have provided the Claimant with more time to recover before moving her case onto formal proceedings and set realistic timescales to measure her improvement. Since it didn’t take such steps, this claim was also upheld.

In a separate remedy hearing, the Claimant was awarded £32,583.50 in compensation. Her award included injury to feelings and interest.

How to Prove Disability Discrimination at Work

If an individual believes they’ve been unfairly treated at work, they must understand how to prove it to seek justice. The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from discrimination, harassment, and victimisation related to legally defined disabilities.

To establish a case, individuals must be able to show that:

  1. They have a qualifying disability. The first step is demonstrating that their condition meets the legal definition of a disability. This includes 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. Medical evidence, such as GP notes, hospital records, or OH assessments, can help prove this.
  2. Their employer knew or ought reasonably to have known about their condition. Even if someone doesn’t disclose their condition, a claim can succeed if their employer should’ve reasonably realised they were disabled.
  3. They suffered unfavourable treatment because of their disability. This could include being dismissed, denied promotion, or not being provided reasonable adjustments at work. The key is to link the treatment experienced to their disability.
Read More: Racial Discrimination Soars Among Nurses: Findings from the RCN and What the Law Says

To strengthen one’s case, it’s important to keep detailed records, such as emails, meeting notes, and medical correspondence. Those affected should consider addressing the matter internally first before pursuing Acas early conciliation or employment tribunal proceedings. If a claim must be brought, though, eligibility criteria and time limits must be adhered to.

If you have experienced any form of disability discrimination and want expert legal assistance, contact Redmans Solicitors now. Our team of employment specialists is here to help, and following a brief chat, we can discuss your possible options.

Begin your journey with us today by:

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