Peloton liable for failure to make reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent employee

Employment Tribunals are grappling with an increasing case load due to claims brought by neurodivergent employees.

Household name Peloton was successful in defending the majority of claims brought by a former employee, but was unsuccessful in defending a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The facts of the case

The claimant began work in 2022 for the newly opened Peloton studio in London, which provided live exercise classes in person and online. At the outset of his employment, the claimant declared that he was autistic. He requested that he not be required to travel at rush hour and to wear sunglasses, which was agreed with the respondent.  In the course of his employment, he was also diagnosed with ADHD, which he also declared.

The London site was known for being noisy, with loud music and fragrances pumped into public spaces. Members were encouraged to scream like fans for their favourite instructors. This atmosphere was encouraged to keep client energy levels up.

The claimant moved between a variety of roles, which required different degrees of working front of house and administration. He repeatedly asked for reasonable adjustments, including notice of meetings, fifteen-minute breaks, fixed weekly days of work, provision of noise-cancelling headphones and adjustments to triggers in the performance management and sickness absence policies.

He also requested redeployment to a suitable alternative role, which was less client-facing and overstimulating. He raised multiple grievances, repeatedly asking for these adjustments.

Occupational Health reports were raised, with the last one concluding that if adjustments to a quiet environment could not be accommodated, the claimant should be redeployed.

The claimant brought a variety of discrimination claims, including direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment, victimisation and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Conclusion

The Employment Tribunal found that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments in respect of having structured rest breaks and by requiring the claimant to work in public-facing areas.

The respondent had failed to consistently allow him rest breaks and had removed the use of a spreadsheet of employee capacity that had formally incorporated his fixed breaks. Without planned breaks, he could not effectively decompress from sensory overload in a highly stimulating work environment.

He found it more difficult to negotiate his own breaks with colleagues, which meant he could not take breaks consistently.

It was accepted that Peloton was a busy and overstimulating place to work. The claimant was hypersensitive to highly stimulating environments. The respondent had periods during the week when the site was not open to guests, and employees carried out administrative work. They failed to discharge their burden of proof as to why this option could not have been trialled for the claimant.

Other arguments raised by the claimant about reasonable adjustments (including playing loud music or requiring him to interview for other redeployment roles) were not successful.

Practical lessons for employers

One of the key takeaways for employers is to explore recommendations made by an Occupational Health report thoroughly.

 If it is not practical, reasonable or proportionate to adjust, firm evidence should be provided about why the adjustment cannot be made.

Employers should consider the use of trial periods for appropriate adjustments as a means to gather evidence about whether an adjustment is reasonable or not.