A Sainsbury’s manager with a disability who was dismissed during his probation for refusing to work extra hours has been awarded £32,000 after an employment tribunal ruled he was discriminated against.
Ricky Taylor, who worked at the St Albans branch, was promoted to customer and trading manager in September 2022. His new contract stated that his working pattern could change depending on the needs of the business, including weekends, late nights, night shifts and bank holidays.
Taylor lives with ankylosing spondylitis, an autoimmune condition that can cause severe stiffness, particularly in cold weather, and can make walking difficult during flare-ups. The condition also meant that seemingly routine health issues, such as dental problems, took longer to resolve. Before his promotion, he had taken a relatively high number of days of sickness absence due to a dental abscess and a knee injury.
He informed Sainsbury’s of his condition, and a workplace adjustment plan was drawn up. One of the adjustments requested was that he work only his contracted hours, because extended shifts risked worsening his symptoms. He also told his manager he preferred night shifts because staying active helped him manage his pain and allowed him to rest afterwards.
Despite this, he was told he was expected to work an additional 10 hours each week to complete handovers at the end of his night shifts.
Taylor raised the issue with HR, explaining that he was regularly working beyond his contracted hours and did not agree with the expectation. He was later called to a 12‑week probation review and informed he had failed because he was not doing enough overtime. He was also invited to a disciplinary meeting and issued a warning about his absence levels.
At the tribunal, Taylor said he frequently offered to work four extra hours, but “this is not good enough”, and that he fundamentally disagreed with the idea that managers should routinely stay late.
The tribunal accepted that Sainsbury’s absence policy had a legitimate purpose but found that the agreed adjustments had not been implemented. It also noted that his earlier absences, which were linked to his disability, could reasonably have been discounted once the adjustment plan was in place. Allowing him to finish at 7.30am instead of 7am to complete handovers was also considered a reasonable adjustment.
Employment judge Alliott said: “In our judgment, a reasonable adjustment would have been to disregard all the claimant’s historic absences as they occurred at times before reasonable adjustments had been made. Once the [workplace adjustment] recommendations were implemented, the claimant should have been treated as having zero absences.”
Because this did not happen, Taylor’s sick pay dropped to the statutory rate after he exhausted his entitlement. The tribunal found he should have received nearly six weeks of sick pay from May 2023.
Taylor resigned in July 2023, saying the grievance outcome did not address his concerns fairly or promptly.
Judge Alliott added: “We find that the disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments that have been proved were sufficiently serious to constitute fundamental breaches of the claimant’s contract of employment. In addition, we find that the failure to pay the claimant company sick pay was sufficiently serious to constitute a fundamental breach of the claimant’s contract of employment. Consequently, we find that the respondent did breach the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.”
At the remedy hearing, Taylor was awarded £32,321 in compensation.
