A UK employment tribunal has ruled that an employer discriminated against a remote worker by refusing to let her keep her camera off during an online training session, highlighting how organisations must increasingly consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees in today's digital workplace.
A UK employment tribunal has ruled that an employer discriminated against a remote worker by refusing to let her keep her camera off during an online training session, highlighting how organisations must increasingly consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees in today's digital workplace.
What Happened?
The case centres on Laura Tait, a home-based travel consultant employed by Holiday Extras, whose role involved supporting customers primarily by telephone alongside email and live chat.
The tribunal heard that Ms Tait, who has anxiety, ADHD and autism, had experienced increasing work-related stress and repeatedly told managers that written communication was considerably less demanding than telephone and video interactions. Over time, she requested a number of adjustments, including a greater proportion of chat and email work and permission to keep her camera switched off during online meetings when necessary.
The issue came to a head during a remote training session on 24 August 2023. Feeling, in her words, "super anxious", Ms Tait asked if she could leave her camera off. Instead, she was told to "start with it on and to see how she went". According to the tribunal, she was unable to cope and left the session. She later went on long-term sick leave with work-related stress and anxiety.
Why Did The Tribunal Rule Against The Employer?
The tribunal did not conclude that Holiday Extras had ignored Ms Tait's health concerns altogether. Throughout her employment, the company had introduced various temporary measures, including phased returns, reduced hours and other forms of support.
However, the judges found that several longer-term adjustments that would have reduced the disadvantage she experienced had not been implemented, despite being practical and reasonable.
Employment Judge Liz Ord wrote: "[Holiday Extras] did not allow the requested adjustment on 24 August 2023, when they were first made aware of [Ms Tait] being overwhelmed."
The judgment also said: "Nonetheless, we take the view that the adjustment was reasonable and should have been put in place from 24 August 2023."
The tribunal also found that Holiday Extras should have made greater use of chat and email work, rather than requiring Ms Tait to spend such a high proportion of her working day on telephone calls, concluding that these changes could have been accommodated without creating significant operational difficulties across a team of more than 50 travel consultants.
What The Decision Does And Does Not Mean
Although many headlines have suggested that employers can no longer insist staff switch on their cameras during online meetings, that is not actually what the tribunal decided.
In fact, the ruling was based on the employer's legal duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for an individual employee whose disabilities placed her at a substantial disadvantage.
Importantly, the tribunal did not uphold every adjustment Ms Tait requested. Some proposals, including a one-hour transition period whenever moving from chat work back to telephone calls, were rejected because the tribunal accepted that they would have had too great an operational impact.
The judgment therefore reinforces an established legal principle rather than creating a new one. In short, employers are expected to consider reasonable adjustments based on an individual's circumstances, balancing the needs of the employee against the practical requirements of the organisation.
Why Remote Working Changes The Conversation
The case also illustrates how employment law continues to adapt to increasingly digital workplaces. Reasonable adjustments have traditionally focused on physical working environments, such as adapted workstations, accessible buildings or specialist equipment. As remote and hybrid working have become more common, however, digital workplace practices are receiving the same level of scrutiny.
Video meetings, online training sessions, communication platforms and virtual collaboration tools now form part of many employees' everyday working environment. For some people, appearing on camera may be routine. For others, particularly those with certain disabilities or neurodivergent conditions, it can create genuine barriers to participation.
The tribunal accepted that, in Ms Tait's circumstances, requiring her to appear on camera placed her at a substantial disadvantage compared with colleagues who did not experience the same difficulties.
What Does This Mean For Your Business?
For businesses, the judgment is an important reminder that workplace inclusion extends beyond the physical office. Policies governing video meetings, communication methods and remote collaboration should be considered in the same way as any other workplace practice when assessing whether reasonable adjustments may be required.
It's worth noting that the decision should not be interpreted as preventing employers from asking staff to switch on their cameras during meetings. Rather, it reinforces the need to consider individual circumstances, explore practical alternatives and document the reasons behind any decisions. Employers are not required to agree to every request, although they are expected to demonstrate that adjustments have been properly evaluated rather than dismissed on general operational grounds.
The case also highlights the importance of meaningful dialogue between managers and employees. Temporary support measures can be valuable during periods of ill health, but organisations should also consider whether those adjustments offer a sustainable longer-term solution. As remote and hybrid working continue to evolve, businesses that build flexibility into their management practices are likely to be better placed to support employees, reduce legal risk and create more inclusive digital workplaces.
Frequently asked questions
Can employers force employees to turn their cameras on during video calls?
Yes, employers can generally ask employees to turn their cameras on during video calls. However, the tribunal ruling confirms that where an employee has a disability that places them at a substantial disadvantage — such as anxiety, ADHD or autism — employers have a legal duty under the Equality Act 2010 to consider reasonable adjustments. This may include allowing the employee to keep their camera off. The ruling does not mean cameras must always be optional for all employees.
What did the Holiday Extras employment tribunal ruling decide?
The tribunal found that Holiday Extras discriminated against employee Laura Tait by refusing to allow her to keep her camera off during a remote training session on 24 August 2023. Ms Tait has anxiety, ADHD and autism. The tribunal ruled that permitting her to keep her camera off was a reasonable adjustment that should have been made under the Equality Act 2010, and that the employer's failure to implement this and other longer-term adjustments amounted to discrimination.
What are reasonable adjustments for remote workers under the Equality Act 2010?
Reasonable adjustments are changes an employer must make to remove or reduce a substantial disadvantage experienced by a disabled employee. For remote workers, this could include allowing cameras to be switched off during video calls, increasing the proportion of written communication such as chat and email, adjusting the balance of telephone versus non-telephone work, or providing flexible scheduling. The key test is whether the adjustment is practical and does not create an unreasonable operational burden.
Does the tribunal ruling apply to all employees or only those with a disability?
The ruling applies specifically to employees with a disability or health condition covered by the Equality Act 2010. It does not give all employees the automatic right to keep their cameras off. The obligation on employers is to consider reasonable adjustments on an individual basis where a disability creates a substantial disadvantage. Employers can still require cameras to be on for other employees where there is no such disadvantage.
What should employers do to avoid similar tribunal claims over video meetings?
Employers should review their policies on video meetings and remote working to ensure they explicitly consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. Practically, this means responding promptly to adjustment requests, documenting the reasoning behind any decisions, engaging in meaningful dialogue with the employee, and exploring alternatives rather than applying a blanket policy. Temporary measures during periods of ill health are helpful but should be accompanied by consideration of longer-term sustainable adjustments.
Have questions about this topic?
Our Kent-based team is happy to discuss what this means for your business.