Ladbrokes v Omi establishes key precedent on disability discrimination comparators

The Employment Appeal Tribunal's recent judgement in Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited v Ms Wahida Omi provides crucial guidance on disability discrimination claims and the application of comparator analysis in workplace disputes. The EAT upheld the original Employment Tribunal's findings that Ms Omi had been subjected to direct disability discrimination and constructively dismissed from her position as Customer Service Manager.

Case background and disability accommodation

Ms Omi, diagnosed with Conn's Syndrome—a condition acknowledged by Ladbrokes as a disability—experienced a reduction in working hours from 30 to 17 per week following sick leave. Her medical advisors had recommended workplace modifications to accommodate her health condition, yet despite recognising the need for flexible arrangements, Ladbrokes failed to adequately respond to her requests for restoration of original hours or address her grievances regarding differential treatment compared to colleagues.

Comparator analysis and discrimination findings

The case centred on the validity of Ms Omi's chosen comparator, her colleague Tejas, who had successfully secured an increase from lower contracted hours to 30 hours per week. The Employment Tribunal determined that the differential treatment between the two employees constituted direct discrimination, noting that Tejas obtained the additional hours without demonstrating the same flexibility requirements imposed upon Ms Omi.

Judge James Tayler emphasised that the Employment Tribunal had not erred in law when assessing whether the circumstances between Ms Omi and her comparator were materially different. The judgement confirmed that evidence of available shifts at Watling Street demonstrated both employees should have had equal access to these hours, reinforcing the principle of fair treatment irrespective of disability status.

Constructive dismissal determination

The tribunal's analysis of constructive dismissal carefully examined the circumstances surrounding Ms Omi's resignation. The judgement established that her departure resulted directly from ongoing unresolved grievances and perceived discrimination. Crucially, the tribunal found that Ms Omi's resignation was not an affirmation of her employment contract, as she had sought resolution for her concerns without receiving satisfactory responses from management.

The ruling determined that the unaddressed issues had created a hostile working environment, making Ms Omi's position untenable and justifying her decision to resign. This finding underscores the importance of employers addressing disability-related grievances promptly and comprehensively.

Legal implications and precedent value

The judgement articulates significant principles regarding employer obligations in disability discrimination cases. It demonstrates that assumptions about disabled employees' capabilities or requirements can constitute discriminatory treatment, particularly when such assumptions result in less favourable treatment compared to non-disabled colleagues.

The case reinforces that effective comparator analysis requires careful examination of actual circumstances rather than theoretical differences. Where evidence demonstrates that similar opportunities were available to both disabled and non-disabled employees, differential treatment based on disability-related assumptions will likely constitute discrimination.

The constructive dismissal aspects of the judgement highlight the serious consequences of failing to address disability-related grievances. Employers must ensure that complaint procedures are not merely formal exercises but provide meaningful resolution of discrimination concerns.

This decision serves as an important precedent for future disability discrimination cases, particularly those involving working arrangements and the application of comparator analysis. It reinforces the necessity for employers to maintain vigilance against implicit biases that may affect opportunities for disabled employees, whilst providing clear guidance on the evidential requirements for establishing both direct discrimination and constructive dismissal in disability-related workplace disputes.