Does an employer have to provide equipment as a reasonable adjustment if the employee already has it at home?

What happened?

In D Vale v The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary, Ms Vale worked as a Victim and Witness Care Officer on a fixed term contract covering a colleague's secondment. 

During her induction, she disclosed that a private provider regulated by the Care Quality Commission had diagnosed her with ADHD. She explained that background noise distracted her and requested noise-cancelling headphones as a workplace adjustment.

As she began preparing to make telephone calls as part of her role, discussions took place about telephone headsets. Ms Vale repeated her request for noise-cancelling headphones. Her manager said that approval was needed and asked why she required them rather than a standard headset. Although Ms Vale owned noise-cancelling headphones at home, she did not use them at work and did not mention them to her manager. The employer never provided the headphones she had requested.

Ms Vale later became unwell at work and provided further information about her diagnosis and treatment. She explained that her GP had previously attributed her symptoms to low self-esteem rather than ADHD, which led her to seek an assessment from a private provider. Her manager questioned the legitimacy of the diagnosis and suggested that the provider may have exploited Ms Vale. Notes of the discussion recorded that the manager would continue to support her, but the employer took no further action at that stage, such as arranging an occupational health referral.

During another discussion, Ms Vale said that she was struggling with aspects of her role, particularly because different colleagues showed her different ways of carrying out the same tasks. 

Ms Vale later went on sick leave. During her absence, she was referred to occupational health, and she submitted a grievance that included complaints about her manager. 

The employer held a probation meeting and arranged a follow up meeting. Although Ms Vale initially agreed to attend the later meeting, she subsequently said that she was unwell and unable to take part, so it did not go ahead. 

Ms Vale remained absent from work until her fixed-term contract ended in accordance with its terms as the substantive post-holder was due back from secondment.  

She brought claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, direct discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability.

Did the employer have to provide the noise-cancelling headphones? 

If an employee is disabled under the Equality Act 2010, employers are legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments to avoid the disadvantage the disability causes the employee at work. 

The tribunal had to consider whether the employer's failure to provide noise-cancelling headphones placed Ms Vale at a substantial disadvantage because of her ADHD. 

The tribunal noted that Ms Vale had requested noise-cancelling headphones from the outset of her employment and repeated the request when discussions took place about headsets. She explained that background noise affected her ability to concentrate. 

An unusual feature of the case was that Ms Vale already owned a pair of noise-cancelling headphones for use at home. However, the tribunal emphasised that the duty to make reasonable adjustments rests with the employer, not the employee. The fact that Ms Vale already had headphones at home did not remove the employer's obligation to provide a pair for work. 

The tribunal therefore concluded that providing noise cancelling headphones would have been a reasonable adjustment and that the employer's failure to provide them amounted to a failure to make reasonable adjustments. 

Did the manager's comments about her diagnosis amount to harassment? 

Ms Vale argued that her manager's comments questioning the validity of her ADHD diagnosis and suggesting that she had been exploited by the private provider amounted to harassment related to her disability. 

Harassment occurs when an employee is subjected to unwanted conduct that is related to a protected characteristic, in this case disability. The conduct must have the purpose or effect of violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them. 

Although the tribunal acknowledged that the manager was trying to be supportive and had no intention of harassing Ms Vale, it found that it was reasonable for the comments to have that effect. 

The tribunal observed that, rather than focusing on whether the diagnosis was valid, the manager should have explored how Ms Vale's symptoms affected her at work and considered obtaining occupational health advice.

The tribunal rejected Ms Vale's other harassment allegations. For example, it found that inviting her to probation meetings during her sickness absence was an appropriate part of managing her employment.

The tribunal also dismissed her remaining discrimination claims. In particular, it found that her fixed-term contract ended because the secondment arrangement was expected to come to an end, in line with the terms of her contract. The decision was unrelated to her sickness absence or disability. 

What can employers learn from this case?

The case is a useful reminder that the duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 rests with you as the employer. Even if an employee already has access to equipment outside work, you may still need to provide it in the workplace if that would be a reasonable adjustment. 

It also highlights the importance of tracking adjustment requests from start to finish. Here, the request for noise-cancelling headphones was raised during onboarding and repeated later, but no action was taken. Keeping a central record of requests and decisions can help ensure that adjustments are properly considered and implemented without unnecessary delay. Make sure any records are stored securely and handled in line with data protection requirements.

Finally, remember that an employee does not need a formal diagnosis to be protected under the Equality Act 2010. The key question is whether 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. In this case, concerns about the legitimacy of the diagnosis distracted attention from the important issue: the impact of the condition and what support might be needed. The focus should be on the effect of the impairment, not the label attached to it. 

Our newsletter

We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.