When ‘Zero Tolerance’ Becomes Disability Discrimination: Lessons for Employers from Halstead v Wetherspoons

The recent Employment Tribunal decision in Mr Halstead v J D Wetherspoons Plc is a striking example of how rigid procedures and “zero-tolerance” policies can cross the line into disability discrimination.

While the facts arose from what might seem a minor disciplinary issue, the Tribunal’s findings highlight how standard procedures, if applied inflexibly, can amount to disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Background

Mr Halstead, who is autistic, worked for Wetherspoons as a kitchen associate. In August 2023, he was investigated for using his employee discount for a group of seven people instead of the company’s four-person limit.

Wetherspoons adopted a strict stance, launching an immediate investigation and disciplinary process.  The Tribunal noted, Mr Halstead was “called into an investigation meeting without notice, without an explanation of the process and without being offered support”.  They also noted that the company had adopted a zero-tolerance approach and gave no consideration for disability-related factors.

This “one-size-fits-all” process triggered significant stress and anxiety, leading to sickness absence.

Throughout the process, Mr Halstead asked that his mother be allowed to attend meetings to help him understand what was happening — a request grounded in his autism diagnosis. The company refused, citing policy limits on companions to colleagues or union representatives. The Tribunal found that refusal unreasonable, noting that allowing parental support “would have been a simple, practical adjustment likely to alleviate the claimant’s anxiety and confusion”.

The employer had known of his autism from earlier occupational-health records, meaning the duty to make reasonable adjustments was firmly engaged.

The Legal Issue

The Tribunal accepted that Mr Halstead had broken a workplace rule but emphasised that the legal issue was not the mistake itself, but how the employer responded to it. Section 20 of the Equality Act requires employers to take reasonable steps to avoid a substantial disadvantage caused by any provision, criterion or practice (PCP).

The Tribunal identified two relevant PCPs:

1. The standard procedure of summoning an employee to an investigation meeting without prior notice or explanation
2. Applying the disciplinary process rigidly without adapting communication or pace for someone with autism.

Both, it held, placed Mr Halstead at a substantial disadvantage.  The judge commented in the written reasons “The claimant’s autism meant he would find unexpected confrontation, formal questioning and uncertainty significantly more distressing than a neurotypical comparator.”

Outcome

Wetherspoons was found to have failed to make reasonable adjustments, though the separate harassment claim did not succeed.  Fortunately for Wetherspoons, by December 2023, they began to correct the approach, they allowed written responses, informal meetings, and support companions, all of these steps the Tribunal described as “appropriate and helpful”.

Nonetheless, the earlier failure was sufficient to establish liability. Mr Halstead received £3,520 for financial loss, £18,500 for injury to feelings, and £3,392 interest, totalling £25,412.

Key Lessons for Employers

1. Knowledge Triggers Duty

Once an employer knows or ought reasonably to know of an employee’s disability, the duty to make reasonable adjustments arises.  Remember too that it is not necessary for the employee to make a formal request. Employers must ensure that awareness of a disability carries forward across locations, line managers or re-employment.

2. Review “Standard” Procedures

A disciplinary or investigatory process that appears neutral may still disadvantage a disabled person.  Before applying a procedure rigidly, ask: “Would this cause particular difficulty for someone with X condition?”  If so, tailor it, for example, by offering written questions, providing advance notice, or holding a less formal meeting.

3. Communication is Key

Many neurodiverse employees experience anxiety from unstructured or unexpected interactions. Clear, written explanations of what will happen and why can prevent distress and potential claims.

4. Adjust Early – Don’t Wait for a Complaint

The Tribunal noted that Wetherspoons’ later adjustments were sensible but came too late. Early consideration and documentation of adjustments can mitigate risk and demonstrate compliance.

Conclusion

The Halstead case illustrates that equality duties extend beyond recruitment and into the day-to-day management of staff. What undid Wetherspoons was not malice, but inflexibility applying a standard process to a non-standard situation.

As the Tribunal succinctly observed, “the respondent could and should have anticipated the disadvantage and taken simple steps to avoid it”.

For employers, the message is clear: fairness sometimes means difference.  Many equate treating people equally as treating everyone the same, when in fact true equality is equity. Adjusting procedures to suit an individual’s needs isn’t special treatment, it’s a legal duty.

How To Contact Us:

To contact a member of our team, you can fill in our online enquiry form, email info@fraserdawbarns.com, or call your nearest office below. If you’d like to speak to a member of our team at one of our offices across Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, visit our offices page.

Wisbech: 01945 461456

March: 01354 602880

King’s Lynn: 01553 666600

Ely: 01353 383483
Downham Market: 01366 383171

This article aims to supply general information, but it is not intended to constitute advice. Every effort is made to ensure that the law referred to is correct at the date of publication and to avoid any statement which may mislead. However, no duty of care is assumed to any person and no liability is accepted for any omission or inaccuracy. Always seek advice specific to your own circumstances. Fraser Dawbarns LLP is always happy to provide such advice.