Denied the Right to Work from Home: When Rigid Policies Become Disability Discrimination

An allocations officer who had worked for her local council for over two decades develops agoraphobia. She physically cannot leave her home. She tells her employer. Occupational health confirms it. Her colleagues already work remotely. Her role can be done from home. But instead of accommodating her, the council withdraws her hybrid working arrangement, launches disciplinary proceedings, and ultimately dismisses her.

The employment tribunal found the council liable on four separate grounds: unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect disability discrimination, and unfavourable treatment arising from disability.

This case, Dudding v Gravesham Borough Council, is a masterclass in how not to manage a disabled employee. It exposes what happens when rigid attendance policies override medical evidence, when disciplinary processes are used against disabled workers, and when employers ignore their own internal procedures.

What Happened: The Facts of the Case

Marina Dudding worked as an allocations officer in the housing service at Gravesham Borough Council. She had been employed by the council since 2000. Dudding had generalised anxiety disorder and moderate depressive episodes which caused agoraphobia symptoms, including palpitations and abdominal pain when she attempted to leave her home.

Between 2021 and October 2023, following a workplace stress risk assessment, Dudding worked from home two days per week under a hybrid working arrangement. The arrangement worked. Her role, which predominantly involved assessment work, could be performed remotely. Other members of her team were also working from home.

In early 2023, Dudding's symptoms worsened. She was signed off sick between March and July 2023 with work-related stress, high blood pressure, and anxiety. During an April 2023 meeting with HR, she explained that she could not leave her home and could not physically come into the office. Occupational health assessed her and found agoraphobia symptoms, initially declaring her unfit for work.

A second occupational health report in July 2023 found Dudding fit for a phased return over four to six weeks. She returned to work on 10 July 2023.

Then, in October 2023, following complaints about Dudding's telephone manner and missed meetings, the council took two simultaneous actions. It launched disciplinary proceedings against her. And it ended her hybrid working arrangement entirely, requiring her to attend the office full-time with no review date and no end date.

Dudding told her managers that this requirement was impacting her health. She was signed off sick. In March 2024, she was issued a final written warning for conduct. An occupational health assessment in April 2024 found her fit to return if adjustments were put in place. But at her return to work meeting, Dudding was told that hybrid working would not be reinstated because of the disciplinary warning.

The tribunal noted that this position was "at odds" with the occupational health advice. Other team members continued to work remotely. The role could clearly be done from home. Work could be monitored remotely. Yet the council refused to reinstate the adjustment.

Dudding's sickness absence continued. In May 2024, the council dismissed her on ill-health capability grounds, bypassing stage two of its own sickness absence policy in the process.

The Legal Findings

The tribunal upheld Dudding's claims on all four grounds. Each finding carries important lessons for employers.

Failure to make reasonable adjustments

Under Sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a provision, criterion, or practice places a disabled employee at a substantial disadvantage. The council's requirement that Dudding attend the office full-time was exactly such a provision. The tribunal found that allowing hybrid or home working was a reasonable adjustment that the council had previously provided, that occupational health had recommended, and that the council refused to reinstate.

Indirect disability discrimination

Under Section 19 of the Equality Act, indirect discrimination occurs when an employer applies a provision, criterion, or practice that is apparently neutral but puts people with a particular protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage. The office-only attendance requirement was applied to all staff but placed Dudding, because of her disability, at a substantial disadvantage. The council could not justify the requirement as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Discrimination arising from disability

Under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, it is discrimination to treat someone unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability, unless the treatment can be justified. Dudding's extended sickness absence arose from her disability. The council's decision to dismiss her because of that absence was unfavourable treatment arising from disability, and the tribunal found it was not justified.

Unfair dismissal

The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally and substantively unfair. The council had bypassed stage two of its own sickness absence policy, moving straight to dismissal. It had failed to consider the reasonable adjustments that occupational health had recommended. And it had used the disciplinary warning as a reason not to reinstate hybrid working - despite that warning itself being linked to conduct that was connected to Dudding's disability.

Agoraphobia and the Equality Act

Agoraphobia is an anxiety disorder characterised by fear and avoidance of situations where escape might be difficult or help might not be available. It can include fear of leaving home, using public transport, being in open or enclosed spaces, or being in crowds. Physical symptoms can include palpitations, shortness of breath, nausea, and abdominal pain. In severe cases, people with agoraphobia may become housebound.

Under the Equality Act 2010, a person has a disability 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. Agoraphobia, particularly where it prevents or restricts a person from leaving their home, clearly meets this threshold.

Employers should be aware that agoraphobia can fluctuate. An employee may have periods where they can attend the workplace and periods where they cannot. This does not mean the condition is not a disability. The Equality Act explicitly provides that conditions with fluctuating effects are still disabilities if the effect is likely to recur.

Agoraphobia often co-occurs with other conditions such as generalised anxiety disorder, depression, and panic disorder, as was the case for Marina Dudding. Employers should take a holistic view of the employee's health and avoid treating each condition in isolation.

Remote Working as a Reasonable Adjustment

One of the most significant aspects of this case is the tribunal's treatment of home or hybrid working as a reasonable adjustment. This is a question that employers across the country are grappling with as return-to-office mandates gain momentum. The Dudding case provides a clear answer: where an employee's disability makes office attendance difficult or impossible, and their role can be performed remotely, refusing to allow home working is likely to be a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

In Dudding's case, all three conditions were clearly met. She had a disability. The office-only requirement placed her at a substantial disadvantage. And home working was not only reasonable but had already been successfully implemented for over two years.

Following Your Own Policies

One of the most damaging aspects of the council's conduct in this case was its decision to bypass stage two of its own sickness absence policy and proceed directly to dismissal. This is a common mistake that employers make, and it is one that tribunals take very seriously.

Internal policies exist for a reason. They provide a structured, fair, and transparent framework for managing employee issues. When an employer departs from its own procedures, it raises an immediate question: why? In a discrimination context, departing from policy can suggest that the employer was looking for a way to remove the employee rather than genuinely trying to support their return.

Key Takeaways for Employers

1. Home working can be a legal duty, not just a perk. Where an employee's disability makes office attendance difficult or impossible and their role can be performed remotely, refusing home working is likely to be a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
2. Follow occupational health advice. If occupational health recommends an adjustment, implement it or have a clear, documented, and lawful reason for not doing so. Ignoring medical advice because it does not align with your attendance preferences is a fast route to a tribunal finding.
3. Do not use disciplinary proceedings to deny adjustments. Adjustments must be assessed on their merits, based on the employee's disability and the demands of the role - not denied as a consequence of a disciplinary matter.
4. Follow your own policies. Bypassing internal procedures, particularly sickness absence stages, fatally undermines the fairness of a dismissal. If your policy says there are stages, follow them.
5. Consider the whole picture. Dudding's conduct issues - her missed meetings and telephone manner - may well have been connected to her disability and the stress of having her adjustments withdrawn. Employers must consider whether performance or conduct issues are disability-related before taking action.
6. Trial adjustments before refusing them. If home working has worked before, the burden is on the employer to explain why it cannot work again.
7. Return-to-office mandates must have disability exceptions. Blanket policies requiring all staff to attend the office are likely to indirectly discriminate against disabled employees. Any attendance policy must include a clear process for considering reasonable adjustments on an individual basis.

The Bigger Picture

This case arrives at a moment when many employers are pulling back from flexible working arrangements. Return-to-office mandates are being issued across the public and private sectors, often justified by claims about collaboration, culture, and productivity. Some of those claims may have merit. But what the Dudding case makes clear is that flexibility is not just a workplace preference for disabled employees. It is, in many cases, a legal requirement.

When employers mandate office attendance without considering the needs of disabled staff, they are not just risking tribunal claims. They are actively excluding disabled people from the workforce.

Genuine inclusion means recognising that not everyone can work in the same way. It means designing policies that are flexible enough to accommodate difference. It means listening to medical evidence and acting on it. And it means understanding that dismissing a disabled employee because they cannot meet an attendance requirement that you could have adjusted is not capability management. It is discrimination.

The tribunal in this case saw an employer that had a workable adjustment in place, withdrew it, refused to reinstate it despite medical advice, bypassed its own procedures, and dismissed an employee of over twenty years' service. Inclusion starts with people. It starts with asking what an employee needs to do their job - and then doing everything reasonably within your power to provide it.

This article is for general information purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The facts referenced are based on publicly reported information about the case of Dudding v Gravesham Borough Council. Employers should seek professional guidance on specific cases. Information is accurate as at May 2026.