The 'camera on' tribunal case isn't really about cameras

The 'camera on' tribunal case isn't really about cameras - it's about reasonable adjustments.

A recent Employment Tribunal ruling in favour of an employee who claimed disability discrimination after being refused permission to keep her camera off during virtual meetings has sparked debate about hybrid working policies.

The headlines have understandably focused on whether employers can require employees to switch their cameras on. But in reality, this case is about something much bigger.

It highlights how the workplace continues to evolve and, with it, the nature of the reasonable adjustments employees may need. As technology reshapes the way we work, HR professionals are increasingly being asked to navigate situations that don't fit neatly within existing policies. From hybrid working and neurodiversity to mental health, long-term health conditions and digital collaboration tools, the requests may look different, but the legal principles remain the same.

The challenge for HR isn't whether organisations should have clear workplace expectations. It's ensuring those expectations are applied with enough flexibility to meet employers' obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

Consistency doesn't necessarily mean treating everyone the same

Many organisations have adopted 'camera on' expectations for virtual meetings. The rationale is understandable. Visible participation can improve collaboration, strengthen relationships and help maintain engagement across hybrid and remote teams. These are entirely legitimate business objectives.

Importantly, the tribunal did not suggest that camera-on policies are unlawful. What it reinforced is a long-established principle of employment law: where a disabled employee is placed at a substantial disadvantage by a workplace practice, employers have a duty to consider whether a reasonable adjustment should be made. This distinction matters.

Too often, fairness is mistaken for treating every employee identically. In reality, fairness is about ensuring individuals have the support they need to perform their role effectively. Policies provide consistency, but they should never eliminate professional judgement.

 Focus on the disadvantage, not just the request

One of the most common mistakes employers make is concentrating on the adjustment being requested rather than understanding the disadvantage the employee is trying to overcome.

An employee asking to keep their camera switched off may be managing anxiety, sensory overload, fatigue or another medical condition or disability. The request itself isn't necessarily the issue; it's the impact of the workplace practice that needs to be understood. Rather than making an immediate decision about whether the adjustment is reasonable, HR professionals should encourage managers to have meaningful conversations that explore the underlying concern. Only then can employers properly assess whether the requested adjustment is appropriate or whether there are alternative solutions that remove the disadvantage while still meeting operational needs. The conversation should always come before the conclusion.

The risk of blanket policies

Hybrid working has encouraged many organisations to introduce standardised workplace policies, bringing welcome consistency across dispersed workforces. However, consistency should never become rigidity. Blanket approaches that leave no room for individual circumstances create unnecessary legal and employee relations risks. A policy that works for most employees may place a disabled employee at a substantial disadvantage if applied without flexibility.

Equally important is documenting the decision-making process. Where an adjustment is declined, employers should be able to demonstrate that the request was properly considered, that the employee's circumstances were understood, and that there were clear, evidence-based reasons why the adjustment could not reasonably be accommodated. Well-documented, thoughtful decision-making is often just as important as the outcome itself.

 A wider lesson for HR

Although this tribunal centred on cameras during virtual meetings, the wider lesson extends far beyond hybrid working.

As technology continues to transform the workplace, HR teams will inevitably receive new requests for adjustments relating to AI-enabled tools, digital collaboration platforms, remote working technologies and emerging ways of working that simply didn't exist a few years ago. The scenarios may change, but the legal framework does not.

The organisations least likely to find themselves defending tribunal claims will be those that invest in equipping managers to have constructive conversations, understand the purpose of reasonable adjustments and make balanced, well-reasoned decisions based on individual circumstances rather than blanket rules.

Reasonable adjustments are not about making exceptions. They are about removing unnecessary barriers so that employees can contribute effectively while enabling employers to meet both their legal obligations and their commitment to creating genuinely inclusive workplaces. As working practices continue to evolve, that principle has never been more relevant.