And speaking of episodes brings me to the case of Bolohan v Solway Foods Limited [2026] and the question of quite how much bending over backwards is required by an employer when adjusting to a series of health demands.

Ms Gabriela Bolohan began working at Solway Foods Limited as a Food Production Operative on 29 July 2024.

In October 2024, Ms Bolohan informed the employer that she was experiencing dizziness, pain, fever, and muscle and bone pain. The employer referred her to Occupational Health which carried out an assessment and produced a report. During the assessment, Ms Bolohan reported experiencing pain when lifting. OH concluded that she was fit to continue carrying out sleeving duties but recommended that any lifting be restricted to a maximum of 5 kg. In accordance with this advice, the employer assigned Ms Bolohan to sleeving duties, where the products weighed well below the recommended lifting limit.

In December 2024, Ms Bolohan was diagnosed with Reynaud's Syndrome, a condition that affects blood circulation and can be aggravated by exposure to cold temperatures. She informed the employer of her diagnosis and, on 19 December 2024, requested to be moved to a warmer working environment. Owing to staff absence within the HR team, she did not initially receive a response to her request. Following a further OH assessment, it was recommended that she work in a warmer environment, and her GP subsequently issued a fit note making the same recommendation.

The employer moved Ms Bolohan to an area known as the Pod, which provided a warmer working environment. However, she continued to request a transfer to the packing and stacking department, where her partner worked. The employer declined this request on the basis that the role involved lifting duties that were incompatible with the restrictions identified by OH.

Ms Bolohan subsequently informed the employer that she had attended A&E after work and had been advised that "due to me working in the cold, my heart may stop". In light of this information, the employer recorded its concerns and, following advice from HR, placed her on medical suspension on full pay while it carried out further risk assessments and considered appropriate adjustments. The employer explained that the purpose of the suspension was to "conduct a detailed risk assessment to ensure both your fitness for work and your health and safety in the workplace".

During this period, Ms Bolohan's partner, Mr Petru Ghiarasim, also met with HR to discuss adjustments for arthritis affecting his fingers and toes, which was exacerbated by the cold working environment. He requested a transfer to the Potato Plant and asked whether he and Ms Bolohan could work together. The employer explained that Ms Bolohan could not be transferred to the department because she was not medically fit. Mr Ghiarasim continued to apply for a transfer through the recruitment process and was successfully appointed to the Potato Plant in or around March 2025.

While Ms Bolohan remained on medical suspension, the employer undertook a series of risk assessments to identify a suitable role that accommodated her restrictions relating to cold temperatures, lifting and her general health. During a welfare meeting, Ms Bolohan reiterated that she wished to work alongside her partner in the Potato Plant and explained that subsequent medical investigations had ruled out any risk of her heart stopping. The employer informed her that the OH report confirmed that she remained unfit for work but advised that it would continue to assess alternative working arrangements.

In light of the fact that Ms Bolohan was no longer considered at risk in relation to her heart condition, coupled with OH advice that she was not fit to undertake her substantive role, it was also decided to lift the medical suspension and place Ms Bolohan on normal sickness absence (during which she would be required to provide fit notes and comply with the employer’s Absence Policy & Procedure). This also resulted in her moving onto statutory sick pay (SSP).

In April 2025, Ms Bolohan raised a grievance alleging that the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments and had placed her on SSP. Later that month, she commenced ACAS Early Conciliation. Her grievance and subsequent appeal were both unsuccessful.

In May 2025, she underwent a further OH assessment. The report advised that Ms Bolohan was fit for work, subject to modifications and adjustments being put in place. Following this, and a risk assessment, she was moved to the Potato Plant on a trial basis. The identified risks were to be managed by applying a number of exemptions to the duties Ms Bolohan could be required to perform.

Ms Bolohan subsequently brought claims before the Employment Tribunal in June 2025, alleging direct sex discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The ET dismissed the direct sex discrimination claim.

In relation to reasonable adjustments, the ET held that the employer acted appropriately once it had received sufficient medical evidence regarding Ms Bolohan's condition. It found that the employer could not reasonably have known that the existing adjustments were inadequate until it had received advice from OH and Ms Bolohan's GP. As the ET explained, "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 [employer] could have reasonably and objectively known that working in the Pod was placing Ms Bolohan at substantial disadvantage because of her disability”. Accordingly, the ET concluded that the employer had complied with its duty to make reasonable adjustments and dismissed the claim.

This decision provides a helpful reminder that an employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments is informed by what it knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, about an employee's disability and the disadvantage they face. Employers are not expected to implement adjustments without an adequate evidential basis and may be justified in awaiting appropriate medical advice before determining what adjustments are required. The case also highlights the importance of responding promptly to OH recommendations, undertaking appropriate risk assessments and maintaining clear communication with employees throughout the process.