A firm asking its remote-working legal secretary whether she could come into the office did not constitute harassment, a tribunal has found.
Employment Judge O Segal KC, sitting at the London Central tribunal (pictured above), found that RBG Legal acted reasonably in seeking to explore whether Yolanda Pemberton could work two days a week from the office.
Pemberton worked from home from 2020 to 2023 as she suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, with pain in her hands brought on by typing and mouse clicking.
The tribunal heard that the London firm sent a bespoke chair to Pemberton’s home and provided a light-touch keyboard, footrest and a large monitor, as well as filtering the work to take account of her disability and moving her working hours to the morning.
After a period of absence in early 2023, the London firm met with Pemberton and agreed to support a phased return to work. She claimed that a human resources business partner had said her recovery was taking ‘too long’ but the tribunal found this alleged comment was not made.
The tribunal said it was ‘self-evident’ that it was more convenient for fee earners if legal secretaries work at least a significant proportion of their time from the office. Nevertheless, Pemberton’s boss had modified his own working habits to accommodate her absence and reduced capacity by training himself on other software and working longer hours.
Despite being asked whether she might be able to come into the office, Pemberton was never in effect required to do this. The tribunal had ‘no doubt’ that if the claimant presented good reasons why she had to work from home full-time, these would have been ‘considered sympathetically’ by the firm.
In 2023, after several discussions about her working conditions, Pemberton sent 100 written questions to her HR manager with a ‘confrontational’ tone and the secretary was ‘clearly embarked on what became this tribunal litigation’.
The judge said ‘without hesitation’ that the firm and its managers had tried to support Pemberton and accommodate her disability as best they could over three years. He added that Pemberton’s complaint that the firm failed to modify her duties or allow home working was ‘clearly wrong’. Neither did the expression of a desire for her to work some of the time from the office constitute an ‘intimidating or offensive environment’.
