Ladbrokes Betting v Omi: a lesson in comparators and transparency

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd v Omi highlights critical legal protections for disabled employees. The EAT clarified how comparator analysis under the Equality Act can expose workplace discrimination. 

This article outlines how a disabled employee was denied overtime while a non-disabled colleague received it, and why the Tribunal found this treatment discriminatory, ultimately leading to a finding of constructive dismissal and disability discrimination. 

The facts

The claimant, Ms Omi, had been employed by Ladbrokes as a customer service manager since 2016 on a 30-hour contract. Following a location transfer, she went off sick in December 2021 due to Conn’s Syndrome. Her GP recommended that any return to work should involve adjustments of working only afternoon or evening shifts. Upon her return in January 2022, her hours were reduced to 17 per week. Ms Omi raised concerns about this reduction in an email to the area manager.

In March 2022, a colleague named Tejas joined the same location on a 20-hour contract. By June, Tejas’ hours were increased to 30. Ms Omi became aware of this in late July and subsequently went off sick with depression from the beginning of August. She resigned in November 2022.

The claim

Ms Omi argued that her employer treated her less favourably than a non-disabled colleague, Tejas. While Tejas was regularly offered overtime, Ms Omi was not, despite being deemed fit to work and requesting additional hours.

Ladbrokes argued that Tejas was not a suitable comparator, asserting that the appropriate comparator would be someone working 17 hours with similar limitations. The employment tribunal found, however, that Tejas worked regular afternoon and evening shifts on Tuesdays and Fridays, the Claimant had been seeking similar hours in that location. The ET concluded Tejas was the appropriate comparator. 

“The respondents use of flexibility was, we found, a proxy for the view that the clamant was inflexible because she is disabled.” 

The Tribunal held that Ms Omi had been discriminated against and that she had also been constructively dismissed.

The appeal

Ladbrokes appealed on the following grounds:

1. The ET applied the incorrect timeframe for comparator analysis
2. It miscalculated the comparator’s shifts
3. It failed to consider that Ms Omi could not work early shifts

Ladbrokes also argued that Ms Omi had affirmed her contract by continuing to work after the alleged discriminatory treatment.

The EAT rejected the appeal. It upheld the ET’s reasoning, finding that:

• Both employees worked in similar roles at the same location
• Both were capable of taking on additional hours
• The only material difference was Ms Omi’s disability

The EAT reiterated that comparators need not be identical in every respect, only sufficiently similar to allow a fair basis for comparison:

“The Employment Tribunal concluded that the material circumstances were that both the claimant and Tejas wished to increase their contractual hours and shifts were available to allow them to do so. Tejas’ hours were increased while the claimant’s were not. It was not a necessary element of the analysis that the claimant was required to be able to work the same additional shifts as Tejas. The Employment Tribunal appreciated that the claimant did not want to work early shifts but it rejected the respondent’s suggestion that the claimant had limited the days on which she wished to work to Monday to Wednesday. That was a factual determination that was open to the Employment Tribunal.” 

Why comparators matter 

Comparators are central to direct discrimination claims under the Equality Act. In Ladbrokes v Omi, the comparator helped isolate the role of disability in the employer’s decision-making. This case illustrates that employers must be consistent in their treatment of staff. If a non-disabled employee is offered overtime and a disabled employee in similar circumstances is not, the employer must provide a clear justification or risk a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal also found that the discriminatory treatment contributed to constructive dismissal. Ms Omi resigned after Ladbrokes failed to address her concerns and continued to treat her unfairly. The comparator evidence supported her claim that the employer had breached the implied term of trust and confidence. 

This shows how comparator analysis can extend claims and support broader allegations of unfair treatment and breach of contract beyond discrimination.

Employers must recognise that comparator analysis is not just a legal technicality; it’s a tool for ensuring that workplace decisions are fair, transparent, and inclusive.

Watch our webinar on disability discrimination to learn more.