Employment Tribunal awards over £150,000 for unfair dismissal of disabled employee

An Employment Tribunal has ordered Shared Lives South West, an adult social care charity, to pay in excess of £150,000 following findings of unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability. The case concerned the dismissal of Mr William Drysdale‑Wood, a long‑serving employee with Crohn’s disease and long Covid.

Background

Mr Drysdale‑Wood had worked as a coordinator since 2015 and had a long‑established pattern of disability‑related absence, known to his employer throughout his employment. The Tribunal accepted that he was disabled by reason of Crohn’s disease and long Covid, the latter giving rise to ongoing fatigue, cognitive difficulties and a need for phased adjustments.

Throughout 2022–2023, Mr Drysdale-Wood experienced significant ill‑health, including extended periods of medically‑advised sickness absence. Occupational health reports identified the importance of measures such as reduced caseloads, micro‑breaks, Tai Chi sessions and hybrid working to manage his condition safely.

The dismissal process

In mid‑2023, the charity considered increasing Mr Drysdale-Wood’s workload, citing operational pressures. At the time, his workload had been reduced to approximately 42 units compared with the organisational benchmark of 55. Occupational health evidence continued to emphasise that any increased physical or mental strain was likely to aggravate his symptoms.

Despite this, and following two rapid capability meetings in September 2023, Mr Drysdale-Wood was dismissed on grounds of ill‑health. The timescale from the first capability meeting to dismissal was approximately nine days.

Tribunal’s key findings

The Tribunal upheld claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability, identifying several significant procedural failings:

1. Brief timescale
   
   The entire capability process was initiated and concluded within around nine days, which did not allow Mr Drysdale-Wood to show that his health was improving or demonstrate improved attendance.
   
   
2. Failure to apply any tolerance or discount for disability‑related absence
   
   Although the employer believed it showed “increased tolerance” to disability related absence, the Tribunal found no evidence that disability‑related absence had been properly discounted when assessing capability.
   
   
3. Speculative business need for increased workload
   
   The Tribunal accepted there was a potential operational need for increased caseloads across the team. However, the Tribunal found that as the employer had “anticipated” this need during 2023 had not yet materialised, Mr Drysdale-Wood had not been given any opportunity to demonstrate whether he could manage the increased workload with adjustments.  
   
   
4. Failure to properly consider or implement reasonable adjustments
   
   The employer did not sufficiently engage with occupational health recommendations, including micro‑breaks, Tai Chi sessions and homeworking, all of which were identified as necessary for a safe and sustainable return to work.

Compensation

Following a remedy hearing, the Tribunal ultimately awarded compensation in excess of £150,000.

The Birketts view

This case serves as a clear reminder that:

• Before embarking on capability dismissals involving disability, employers should allow sufficient time for improvement and meaningful consideration of adjustments.
• Disability‑related absence must be properly discounted when evaluating attendance.
• Speculative or future business pressures cannot justify dismissal where the employee has not been given a fair opportunity to demonstrate capability.
• Occupational health guidance should be actively implemented and reviewed.

For organisations in the health and social care sector, this case underlines the importance of careful decision‑making, particularly when managing employees with long-term health conditions. Ultimately, employers should strive to offer appropriate support and well-planned adjustments for employees with disabilities.