How to get reasonable adjustments wrong: Two tribunal decisions signal a clear warning to public bodies in Jersey

Two Employment and Discrimination Tribunal decisions against the Minister for Education this year reveal a troubling pattern and a clear message for public bodies in Jersey. In A & B v Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning [2024] TRE 231 & 232A and C v Minister for Education [2025] TRE 48, the Tribunal found failures to make reasonable adjustments for disabled children in very different contexts. Together, they underscore that the duties under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 applies across all public functions and that systemic failings will not escape scrutiny.

Case one: Regulatory services as public services

In A & B, the claimants were two neurodivergent siblings who required an extension of a childminding ratio exemption. The Childcare and Early Years Service (CEYS) refused, applying a blanket six-month limit on exemptions and excluding consideration of sibling and family context.

A early issue was whether CEYS - exercising a regulatory function- was even providing a "service" within the meaning of the Law. The Tribunal found it was. Administering childminding registrations and exemptions constituted a service to children, parents, and childminders alike. This brings public bodies exercising regulatory functions squarely within the scope of the discrimination law.

The Tribunal was unequivocal: the six-month rule was not policy- it amounted to fettering discretion. Such rigid practices are incompatible with the Law, which requires consideration of the specific disadvantage faced and whether reasonable steps could avoid it.

Compounding the failure, the delegated officer had received no training on discrimination and equality. The Tribunal observed that had she been properly trained, "she would have taken a more flexible approach." The Minister could not escape liability by pointing to good intentions or an untrained officer acting on good but misplaced intentions.

Case two: Education and the failure to differentiate

In C v Minister for Education [2025] TRE 48, the Tribunal considered claims brought on behalf of a disabled child attending a Jersey secondary school.

The Tribunal found that the Minister failed to take reasonable steps to provide differentiated homework and assistive technology, both of which would have removed or reduced the substantial disadvantage the child faced. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld a claim under for discrimination arising from disability in respect of a missed learning opportunity.

While some claims were dismissed the Minister's liability for the acts of school staff was confirmed. The message being that: delegation does not dilute responsibility.

A pattern emerges

These are not isolated incidents. They represent a pattern of public bodies failing to embed reasonable adjustment duties into operational practice. In both cases:

• Rigid approaches replaced individualised assessment
• Staff lacked adequate training on equality obligations
• The Minister bore liability for systemic failings

The Tribunal's findings expose a gap between policy intention and frontline delivery - a gap that creates real harm for disabled children and significant legal exposure for public bodies.

Key takeaways for public bodies, boards, and advisers

These decisions reinforce several critical principles:

Regulatory functions are not exempt. If your organisation touches the public—through licensing, registration, exemptions, or education then the Law applies and reasonable adjustment duties follow.

Blanket policies are unlawful fetters. Decision-makers must retain genuine discretion to respond to disability-related disadvantage. A "standard approach" that excludes individual consideration is not a defence, it is a breach.

Training is not optional. Staff exercising statutory functions must understand their equality duties. Ignorance is not a shield and in fact it is a source of liability.

Vicarious liability is real. The Minister was held liable for the acts of delegated officers and school staff. Organisations cannot insulate themselves by pointing to individual employees.

What should public bodies do now?

For those advising public bodies - or sitting on boards that oversee regulatory or educational functions - these judgments demand action:

1. Audit your policies. Identify any rigid rules or time limits that may operate as unlawful fetters on discretion.
2. Review your training. Ensure all staff exercising public functions receive meaningful, practical training on discrimination and equality. Not just a policy document, but real understanding of how to apply it.
3. Embed accountability. Reasonable adjustment duties must be built into operational processes, not treated as an afterthought when a complaint arises.
4. Recognise the scope of your obligations. If you provide any service to the public, including regulatory service, then the Disrcimination Law applies.