Turning on your webcam for a routine meeting sounds trivial. For one remote worker in the UK, it became the centre of a disability discrimination case — and she won.
Laura Tait, a travel consultant who worked from home for British firm Holiday Extras, took her employer to an employment tribunal after being repeatedly asked to switch her camera on during meetings. Tait said having the webcam active made her feel “super anxious” — an anxiety that, in this case, qualified as a legally protected medical disability. UK Employment Judge Liz Ord agreed the company had failed to make “reasonable adjustments” quickly enough.
The timeline paints a picture of mounting strain. Tait joined Holiday Extras in 2021, and by April 2022 she was already telling a manager she needed time off for extreme stress. Absences continued, with Tait citing “burnout.” She asked her supervisors to stop requiring her camera during meetings and to hand her fewer customer calls. The problem: calls with customers made up the vast majority of her job.
In July 2023, Holiday Extras told Tait it couldn’t hand her live chat and email sessions exclusively, arguing that would be “unfair” to her coworkers, but said it would try to work around her difficulties, including her worries about the camera. Barely a month later, during a remote training session, a colleague asked her to switch her webcam on. Tait logged off.
By October 2023 she was signed off on sick leave for extreme stress and anxiety, and she has not returned to work since. In April 2024 she filed a formal complaint alleging discrimination.
Her original complaint was dismissed, but Judge Ord’s later ruling found that Holiday Extras should have moved faster to accommodate her — including allowing her to keep the camera off during meetings. The delay, the judge determined, left Tait with “substantial disadvantages in the workplace.” She will receive compensation, with the amount to be decided at a later hearing.
The case lands squarely on a tension that has defined the work-from-home era. Always-on video calls have quietly become the default in many companies, treated as a proxy for engagement and presence. Yet research has repeatedly linked remote work to heightened anxiety and worsening mental health for some employees — and “camera on” policies can amplify exactly the stress they’re meant to solve.
Crucially, this isn’t the first ruling of its kind. Courts have previously found that forcing employees to keep a webcam running while working can be unlawful. For employers, the takeaway is blunt: a blanket camera mandate is not a harmless workplace norm. Where an employee has a protected condition, the law expects flexibility — and expects it promptly.
For remote workers who dread the little green light, this ruling is a reminder that turning the camera off can, in the right circumstances, be a right rather than a request.
