Worker’s Cold Environment Claims Dismissed: Tribunal Upholds Employer’s Actions in Raynaud’s Syndrome Case

A worker at a frozen food company who took her employer to tribunal because her working environment was too cold has lost her claims, with the employment tribunal finding the company acted appropriately in response to her medical condition and requests. The ruling, emanating from an employment tribunal in Wales, provides crucial insights into the complexities of an employer’s duty of care, the parameters of reasonable adjustments for disabilities in challenging industrial settings, and the legal thresholds for proving discrimination.

Case Background: Raynaud’s Syndrome and Workplace Challenges

The claimant, Gabriela Bolohan, was employed by Solway Foods, a frozen food production company based in Newport, Wales. Her work environment, typical of such an industry, involved exposure to cold temperatures. A pivotal development in her employment occurred shortly before December 2024 when she was diagnosed with Raynaud’s Syndrome. This chronic condition, estimated to affect between 3% and 5% of the UK population, disproportionately impacting women, causes small blood vessels in the fingers and toes to constrict excessively. This vasospasm typically occurs in response to cold temperatures or stress, leading to reduced blood flow, pain, numbness, and often a change in skin colour in the affected digits. For an individual working in a consistently cold environment, a diagnosis of Raynaud’s Syndrome presents immediate and significant occupational health challenges.

Upon receiving her diagnosis, Ms. Bolohan promptly requested a transfer to a warmer working environment within Solway Foods. Her initial request, however, did not receive an immediate response from the company’s Human Resources (HR) department, a delay later attributed to an absence within the HR team. This initial communication gap, while seemingly minor, contributed to the narrative that would later unfold into a formal grievance and tribunal claim.

A Detailed Chronology of Events

The sequence of interactions and decisions between Ms. Bolohan and Solway Foods provides a comprehensive timeline leading to the tribunal’s judgment:

• December 2024: Gabriela Bolohan receives her diagnosis of Raynaud’s Syndrome. She subsequently communicates this to her employer and requests relocation to a warmer work area.
• Late 2024 / Early 2025: An occupational health assessment is arranged for Ms. Bolohan. Occupational health professionals, recognizing the impact of her condition, recommend a move to a warmer environment. Concurrently, her General Practitioner (GP) issues a fit note, reinforcing the medical advice for a warmer workspace.
• Early 2025: Solway Foods responds to these recommendations by transferring Ms. Bolohan to an area within the facility known as the "Pod." This area was acknowledged by both parties to be significantly warmer than her previous workstation. Despite this move, Ms. Bolohan repeatedly expressed a desire to be transferred specifically to the packing and stacking department, where her partner, Petru Ghiarasim, was employed. The company, however, declined this request, citing Ms. Bolohan’s pre-existing health issues, specifically concerns related to lifting, which made the packing and stacking role unsuitable for her.
• February 2025: A critical incident occurred that significantly impacted the trajectory of Ms. Bolohan’s employment. She informed her employer that she had visited Accident & Emergency (A&E) after work and had been told by medical staff that "due to me working in the cold, my heart may stop." This alarming and potentially life-threatening medical information prompted an immediate and decisive response from Solway Foods’ HR department. Acting on this serious advice, the company placed Ms. Bolohan on medical suspension. The stated purpose of this suspension was to "conduct a detailed risk assessment to ensure both your fitness for work and your health and safety in the workplace." The employment tribunal later affirmed the appropriateness of this suspension, noting that Solway Foods had acted prudently and consistently in response to such grave medical intelligence.
• During Suspension (February – April 2025): While Ms. Bolohan was on medical suspension, Solway Foods undertook extensive internal processes. This included a series of comprehensive risk assessments across various alternative work locations within the company. These assessments were specifically designed to identify roles and environments that could accommodate Ms. Bolohan’s specific issues with cold exposure, her lifting restrictions, and her general health concerns. During this period, Ms. Bolohan once again requested to be placed in the same department as her partner, who by this time had secured a position in the company’s potato plant. However, both the HR department and the occupational health team maintained their assessment that she was "currently unfit for work," while simultaneously reassuring her that they would continue their efforts to risk-assess potential suitable areas for her eventual return.
• April 2025: Dissatisfied with her treatment, Ms. Bolohan formally lodged a grievance against Solway Foods. Her grievance alleged that the company had failed in its statutory duty to offer reasonable adjustments for her disability and had unjustly placed her on statutory sick pay. Following the internal grievance procedure, her complaint was not upheld. She subsequently appealed this decision, but her appeal was also unsuccessful.
• Post-Grievance and Tribunal Proceedings: Following the failure of her internal grievance and appeal, Ms. Bolohan initiated early conciliation with Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service). Acas is a non-departmental public body of the UK government that aims to improve organisations and working life through better employment relations. Early conciliation is a mandatory step before an employment claim can be lodged. When conciliation failed to resolve the dispute, Ms. Bolohan proceeded to file claims with an employment tribunal, alleging direct sex discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The Partner’s Role and the Sex Discrimination Claim

A significant aspect of Ms. Bolohan’s tribunal claim, particularly her allegation of direct sex discrimination, centered on the involvement of her partner, Petru Ghiarasim. Mr. Ghiarasim also engaged with HR to discuss his own health concerns, specifically arthritis in his fingers and toes, and explored the possibility of moving to a warmer working environment. Crucially, he also requested to work alongside Ms. Bolohan.

The HR department’s response to Mr. Ghiarasim was clear: "You may be a couple but here you are individuals. Gabriela has serious medical issues, and she isn’t fit to work in dolly up at all, so we will move her straight away where we can and we may not be able to move you both together." Ms. Bolohan contended that this response, and the company’s overall treatment, constituted direct sex discrimination, using her partner as a comparator to demonstrate less favourable treatment.

However, Employment Judge Stephen Povey ultimately dismissed this claim. The tribunal found that Ms. Bolohan’s attempt to use her partner as a comparator was "misplaced" because their circumstances were "materially different." Judge Povey highlighted that Ms. Bolohan had a formal diagnosis of Raynaud’s Syndrome significantly exacerbated by cold, along with documented lifting restrictions, and critically, had presented a serious A&E report suggesting a life-threatening risk. While Mr. Ghiarasim had arthritis, the severity, specific impact on his work capacity, and the nature of the medical advice he received were not deemed comparable to Ms. Bolohan’s situation, especially concerning the critical "heart may stop" warning. This crucial distinction led the tribunal to conclude that they were not in materially similar circumstances for the purpose of a direct sex discrimination claim.

Legal Analysis and Tribunal’s Judgment

The employment tribunal primarily focused on two key claims brought by Ms. Bolohan: direct sex discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments under disability discrimination law.

• Direct Sex Discrimination: Under the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, direct discrimination occurs when a person is treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic, such as sex. To establish such a claim, the claimant must demonstrate that they were treated less favourably than a real or hypothetical comparator who does not share the protected characteristic but is otherwise in materially similar circumstances. As detailed, Judge Povey found that Ms. Bolohan and Mr. Ghiarasim’s situations were not materially similar due to the significant differences in their medical conditions and associated risks. This finding was central to the dismissal of the sex discrimination claim.

• Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments: This claim falls under the disability discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2010. The Act places a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees where a "provision, criterion or practice" or a physical feature places the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons. Raynaud’s Syndrome, if its adverse effects are substantial and long-term, can constitute a disability under the Act.

  The tribunal meticulously reviewed Solway Foods’ actions following Ms. Bolohan’s diagnosis. It noted that the company had already moved her to the "Pod" – a warmer environment – prior to the critical A&E incident. The judgment pinpointed the receipt of the alarming A&E medical advice in February 2025 as a turning point for the employer’s duty to make further adjustments. Employment Judge Povey’s judgment stated: "It was not until receipt of advice from the medical professionals that the duty was further triggered, since it was not until then that the respondent could have reasonably and objectively known that working in the Pod was placing the claimant at substantial disadvantage because of her disability."

  Crucially, the tribunal found that once this serious medical information was presented, Solway Foods acted promptly and responsibly. The decision to place Ms. Bolohan on medical suspension was not viewed as a punitive measure or a failure to adjust, but rather as a necessary and appropriate step to conduct thorough risk assessments and ensure her health and safety. The employer’s proactive engagement with occupational health professionals, coupled with the multiple risk assessments of alternative work areas during her suspension, demonstrated a diligent and committed effort to find a suitable and safe working solution. The tribunal concluded that Solway Foods "went out of its way to help her to return to work" once it was fully aware of her diagnosis and the associated risks. Consequently, the claim for a lack of reasonable adjustments was also found to be unfounded.

Implications for Employers: Navigating Health, Safety, and Discrimination Laws

This tribunal ruling carries significant implications for employers, particularly those operating in industries with inherent environmental challenges or those managing employees with complex health conditions:

1. Prioritising Occupational Health Advice: The case strongly underscores the critical importance of engaging with occupational health professionals. Their expert medical advice provides an objective and legally defensible basis for employer decisions regarding employee health, fitness for work, and the implementation of reasonable adjustments. Documenting reliance on such advice is paramount.
2. Comprehensive Documentation: Solway Foods’ detailed approach to conducting risk assessments, maintaining internal communications, and consulting with occupational health proved instrumental in its defence. Thorough and contemporaneous documentation of every step taken – from initial requests and medical advice to suspensions and explorations of alternative roles – is indispensable for demonstrating compliance and defending against legal claims.
3. Justification for Medical Suspension: The ruling clarifies that a medical suspension, when based on genuine and serious health and safety concerns and initiated with the explicit purpose of conducting necessary assessments and ensuring employee well-being, can be deemed appropriate and lawful. It is not automatically a discriminatory act or a failure to accommodate.
4. Evolving Duty of Reasonable Adjustments: The duty to make reasonable adjustments is dynamic. It is triggered when an employer knows or reasonably ought to know that an employee has a disability and is placed at a substantial disadvantage. This case illustrates that the scope of what is "reasonable" can evolve with new and critical medical information. Employers are expected to explore practical solutions, but these must be genuinely suitable for the employee’s condition and the operational realities of the business.
5. Rigour in Comparator Selection for Discrimination Claims: For claims of direct discrimination, the concept of a "materially similar comparator" is fundamental. Employers must understand that differing medical conditions, even between individuals with seemingly similar workplace issues, can render comparisons invalid in legal terms. HR departments must ensure that all employment decisions are based on individual circumstances, objective medical advice, and legitimate business needs.
6. Fair Internal Procedures: While Ms. Bolohan’s grievance was not upheld, the fact that Solway Foods had a formal grievance and appeal process, which she utilized, demonstrated adherence to principles of procedural fairness. Robust internal dispute resolution mechanisms can strengthen an employer’s position.

Implications for Employees: Navigating Workplace Accommodations

For employees, this case highlights the complexities and potential hurdles in seeking workplace accommodations and pursuing legal claims:

1. Clear and Comprehensive Medical Documentation: The pivotal role of the A&E warning in this case underscores the importance of clear, comprehensive, and timely medical documentation. Employees should ensure their medical conditions, specific work restrictions, and any associated risks are thoroughly communicated and documented by healthcare professionals.
2. Understanding Legal Thresholds: Proving discrimination, particularly direct discrimination, requires meeting specific legal criteria, such as identifying a valid comparator in materially similar circumstances. This case serves as a reminder that a perceived sense of unfairness may not always align with the strict legal definitions required for a successful discrimination claim.
3. Constructive Engagement with Employer Processes: While employees have statutory rights, engaging constructively with an employer’s internal processes, such as occupational health assessments, risk reviews, and exploration of alternative roles, is often beneficial. Unrealistic demands or a refusal to cooperate with reasonable assessments can potentially weaken an employee’s position in any subsequent legal challenge.
4. Acas Conciliation as a First Step: The use of Acas early conciliation is a mandatory and valuable step for employees before proceeding to an employment tribunal. Even if it does not resolve the dispute, it provides an impartial platform for dialogue and potential resolution outside of formal litigation.

Conclusion: A Balancing Act of Rights and Responsibilities

The Employment Tribunal’s decision in the case of Gabriela Bolohan v Solway Foods Limited serves as a significant precedent in UK employment law, particularly concerning disability accommodations in industrially challenging work environments. It reinforces the principle that while employers bear a crucial duty to protect their employees and to make reasonable adjustments for disabilities, this duty is not absolute. It must be balanced against the practicalities of business operations, the validity and seriousness of medical advice, and the objective assessment of an individual’s fitness for work. The ruling underscores the critical importance of clear communication, robust internal processes, and objective medical guidance in navigating the delicate balance between employee rights and employer responsibilities. For Solway Foods, their documented and proactive steps in response to evolving medical information proved decisive in the tribunal’s decision to dismiss the claims, ultimately affirming their diligent approach to workplace health and safety management.