The London South (Ashford) Employment Tribunal has given written reasons in Jennings v Department for Work and Pensions (6007586/2024). The case was heard and dismissed in November 2025. The Claimant asked for written reasons, and these were provided on 29 April 2026.
Mr Jennings, who is evangelical Catholic and has autism spectrum disorder, applied for a Work Coach role with the DWP. After receiving a job offer, he requested adjustments including the removal of Pride-related imagery, pronoun promotion and LGBTQ+ symbolism from the workplace, arguing that such material conflicted with his religious beliefs and triggered significant distress linked to his disabilities. The DWP declined these requests and, ultimately, he did not take up the role.
Mr Jennings brought claims for indirect discrimination because of religion or belief and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
On the indirect discrimination claim, the Tribunal accepted that the DWP operated a practice whereby employees might encounter Pride symbols, pronoun markers and related expressions of support for LGBTQ+ people in the workplace. It also accepted that some people sharing Mr Jennings’ religious beliefs could be disadvantaged by that practice. The Tribunal also found, however, that the policy pursued legitimate aims of inclusivity, diversity and fostering a sense of belonging. Permitting staff to display such support, but not requiring them to do so, was a proportionate means of achieving those aims. Accordingly, the indirect discrimination claim failed.
On reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal accepted that Mr Jennings’ disabilities and associated phobia of Pride imagery could place him at a substantial disadvantage and that the DWP knew or ought to have known of those disabilities. Nevertheless, it concluded that the adjustments sought (neutral workspaces, restrictions on colleagues’ displays, or homeworking) would either not have adequately addressed the problem or would have unreasonably interfered with the rights of other employees.
The decision illustrates the balancing exercise employers must carry out where competing protected characteristics and rights fall to be accommodated. The Tribunal ultimately held that the DWP’s inclusivity measures were justified and that the Claimant’s proposed adjustments were not reasonable.
Robert Moretto KC appeared for the Department for Work and Pensions instructed by the Government Legal Department.
This article was written by Robin White and Rachel Wall.
See the judgment here.
See the written reasons here.
