There are tribunal cases that feel like technical disputes about procedure.
And then there are cases like Taylor v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd — cases that expose the gap between what an organisation thinks it is doing and what an employee is actually experiencing.
A disabled employee.
A supermarket chain.
An absence policy.
And a reminder that the law cares far less about tidy paperwork than it does about lived reality.
The Employee Behind the Case
Mr Taylor worked for Sainsbury’s and lived with ankylosing spondylitis, a long‑term inflammatory condition that can cause severe pain, stiffness and fatigue. It is a condition that fluctuates, and like many disabilities, it doesn’t map neatly onto rigid attendance expectations.
He raised concerns about:
- how his absence management was handled
- how working hours were allocated
- how reasonable adjustments were considered, implemented, and reviewed
On paper, everything looked reassuringly compliant.
✔ Occupational health referrals
✔ Adjustments discussed
✔ Policies in place
But tribunals don’t judge organisations on the neatness of their documentation.
They judge them on what actually happened.
And that’s where this case becomes instructive.
Where Things Began to Fray
1. Absence Triggers Applied Without Flexibility
Sainsbury’s had a standard absence policy with trigger points.
Nothing unusual there.
But Mr Taylor’s condition meant he was more likely to hit those triggers — not because of misconduct, but because of disability‑related flare‑ups.
The tribunal examined not the existence of the policy, but the rigidity with which it was applied.
A trigger point that is neutral on its face can become discriminatory in practice if managers fail to adjust it for someone whose disability makes absence more likely.
This is where many employers stumble:
they treat “consistency” as fairness, when the law requires individualisation.
2. Adjustments Discussed… But Not Embedded
The organisation did discuss adjustments.
But discussion is not the same as implementation.
And implementation is not the same as ongoing review.
The tribunal looked closely at:
- whether adjustments were actually put in place
- whether they were maintained
- whether managers understood them
- whether they were revisited when circumstances changed
A reasonable adjustment is not a one‑off event.
It is a living commitment.
3. Working Hours Expectations That Didn’t Reflect Reality
Mr Taylor’s condition affected his stamina and mobility.
Yet expectations around shift patterns and duties did not always reflect the limitations identified by occupational health.
This is a common organisational blind spot:
the gap between what HR agrees, what OH recommends, and what frontline managers actually do on the shop floor.
The tribunal paid attention to that gap.
The Legal Test Employers Forget
One of the most common refrains in tribunal litigation is:
“We followed the process.”
But that is not the legal test.
The tribunal asks two questions:
- Did the employee face a disadvantage because of their disability?
- Did the employer take reasonable steps to remove or reduce that disadvantage?
Policies are written for the average employee.
Disability law requires employers to think beyond the average.
And that is where Sainsbury’s fell short.
Why This Case Matters
This case is not about bad faith.
It’s about rigidity — the quiet, procedural kind that creeps in when managers are under pressure, when policies are treated as scripts, and when “consistency” becomes a shield against Here’s a version that keeps the spine of the original but reframes it through that Patrick‑style, morally attentive lens — weighing the lessons for both sides of the employment relationship, and foregrounding judgement as a shared, legally consequential practice.
The biggest HR risks rarely come from having the wrong policy.
They come from applying the right policy as if people were identical units on a spreadsheet.
Absence triggers.
Bonus schemes.
Working‑hours expectations.
Return‑to‑work interviews.
Performance metrics.
On paper, these are neutral tools.
In practice, they can quietly — and sometimes catastrophically — disadvantage disabled employees when managers apply them without curiosity, flexibility or context.
From the employee’s side, the lesson is stark:
you can be doing everything “right” and still find yourself penalised by systems designed for an imaginary average worker.
Knowing your rights, flagging barriers early, and documenting the adjustments you need isn’t self‑advocacy as a favour to HR — it’s self‑protection in a landscape where the burden of explanation too often falls on the person already carrying the weight.
From the employer’s side, the message is even clearer:
the organisations that avoid tribunals aren’t the ones with the thickest policy binders.
They’re the ones with leaders who understand when the rules require:
judgement
nuance
humanity
and the courage to deviate from the script
Because good HR has never been about paperwork.
It’s about the quality of decision‑making in the moments where the policy doesn’t quite fit the person in front of you.
And cases like Taylor v Sainsbury’s underline something many leaders still treat as optional:
judgement is not a soft skill.
It is a legal requirement — one that protects employees from harm and employers from the consequences of their own rigidity.
In other words: the law expects humanity.
And so should we.
By Pat Harrington
