AI attendance and productivity scores and discrimination arising from disability in Great Britain

Many workplace systems now score people on things that a disability can affect: sickness absence, time away from the desk, typing or picking speed, call length, response times. When a low score leads to a warning, lost shifts, a missed bonus or dismissal, section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 is often the provision that matters. This page explains the section and how it applies to scores produced by software.

The short answer: an employer discriminates against a disabled person if it treats them unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability, and cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This does not apply if the employer shows it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the person had the disability (s15).

The parts of the test

• A disabled person: the person must meet the Act's definition; see what counts as a disability.
• Something arising in consequence of the disability: the "something" is not the disability itself but a consequence of it, such as absences, slower output or more breaks (s15(1)(a)).
• Unfavourable treatment because of that something: for example a warning, a lower rating, fewer hours or dismissal triggered by the absence or the slower output (s15(1)(a)).
• Justification: it is for the employer to show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (s15(1)(b)).
• Knowledge: the section does not apply if the employer shows it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the person had the disability (s15(2)).

Section 15 uses the word "unfavourably", while the direct discrimination test in section 13 asks whether someone was treated "less favourably" than others; see AI and the Equality Act for that test.

Where AI scores come in

• Absence triggers: a system that counts sickness absence and automatically raises a warning at a set level will, for some disabled workers, be counting absences that arise from their disability. A separate rule covers absence because of gender reassignment.
• Speed and productivity rates: picking rates, handling times and output scores can be lower because of a condition or its treatment.
• Activity monitoring: idle-time and keystroke measures can record breaks, rest or assistive software use that arise from a disability.
• Ranking for redundancy or shifts: a ranking that uses these scores carries the effect forward into selection or allocation.

Software does not change who is responsible. If the employer acts on the score, it is the employer's treatment, and it is the employer that has to show justification.

Justification in practice

The Act does not list legitimate aims. An employer relying on one, such as managing attendance or meeting service levels, has to show that the way it acted on the score was a proportionate means of achieving it. Useful questions for an employer to ask itself include whether a person looked at the reasons behind the score before acting, whether the disability-related part was taken into account, and whether a less harmful option, such as an adjusted target, was available.

Link with reasonable adjustments

The same facts often raise the duty to make reasonable adjustments, for example adjusting an absence trigger or a productivity target; see reasonable adjustments for AI tools.

Practical steps

• Employers: where staff have told you about a disability, make sure automated triggers and scores do not act on disability-related absence or output without a person reviewing it, and record the aim and why the action is proportionate.
• Workers: tell your employer in writing about the disability and how it affects the measures used, ask for the score to be reviewed by a person, and keep copies of warnings and scores.

This page covers Great Britain and is general information on the law as at 2 November 2026, not legal advice.