The Claimant, who was taken to be a disabled person by reason of epilepsy, made an in-time complaint of failure by the Respondent to make reasonable adjustments for his disability by monitoring his work activity and work-flow (so that he was not taking on too much). The Employment Judge struck out this complaint. The EJ also held that earlier complaints - including earlier complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments by monitoring work activity and work-flow - were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The EJ should not have struck out the Claimant's claim - monitoring work activity and work-flow was capable of being a "step" for the purposes of section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010. It could be a preventative measure which it was reasonable for the Respondent to have to take before the Claimant got into further difficulty. ON the time point, if the EJ had been correct to apply s120(3)(a), his reasoning would have been incorrect - he ought to have concentrated on the question whether the Respondent's conduct extended over a period. However, in any event, it appears that the EJ ought to have applied s120(3)(b).