Ladbrokes Faces Disability Discrimination Claim After Tribunal Upholds Ruling
Ladbrokes' appeal fails as tribunal upholds disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claims. The case centred around unequal treatment regarding working hours.
• public
Ladbrokes Loses Appeal in Disability Discrimination and Constructive Dismissal Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a decision against Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited, finding that the company directly discriminated against an employee and constructively dismissed her. The case, Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited v Ms Wahida Omi [2025] EAT 99, centred around the refusal to increase the claimant's working hours from 17 to 30 per week and its impact on her employment.
Background of the Case
Ms Omi, employed as a Customer Service Manager, has Conn's Syndrome, a condition recognised as a disability by Ladbrokes. After returning from sick leave in January 2022, she requested an increase in her contracted hours. However, a colleague, Tejas, who also sought increased hours, was granted a 30-hour contract while Ms Omi's request was denied.
Tribunal's Findings of Direct Disability Discrimination
The Employment Tribunal determined that Ladbrokes discriminated against Ms Omi by failing to consider her for additional hours, attributing this to a perception of inflexibility due to her disability. The tribunal found that the stated need for flexibility was a "proxy" for the view that Ms Omi was inflexible because she is disabled. The Tribunal highlighted a lack of transparency in the allocation of hours and overtime, with managerial discretion playing a significant role leading to discrimination.
Constructive Dismissal Upheld
The tribunal also supported Ms Omi's claim of constructive dismissal, concluding that the company's failure to increase her hours and address her discrimination concerns created a hostile working environment, leading to her resignation.
Ladbrokes' Appeal Dismissed
Ladbrokes appealed the original judgment, arguing that the Employment Tribunal had erred in its choice of comparator, applied an incorrect timeframe, and failed to adequately consider Ms Omi's alleged inflexibility. His Honour Judge James Tayler dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the Employment Tribunal's findings. Judge Tayler stated it was not a necessary element of the analysis that the claimant was required to be able to work the same additional shifts as Tejas.
The EAT also addressed Ladbrokes' claim that Ms Omi had affirmed her contract of employment by accepting sick pay, prior to her resignation. This claim was withdrawn after a review of the case.
The EAT concluded that Ms Omi had not affirmed her contract before resigning. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
Read the entire judgement here: Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited v Ms Wahida Omi [2025] EAT 99
