January 27, 2026
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent and was absent from work for an extended period due to a serious respiratory illness that exacerbated the Claimant’s existing asthma. During this absence, the Respondence became increasingly frustrated by delays in receiving original medical certificates and what it considered to be limited engagement with its Managing Attendance Policy (the Policy). The matter culminated in a formal hearing under the Policy resulting in the Claimant being dismissed on 25 March 2024.
The Claimant advanced 30 allegations of discrimination across disability, race and perceived intellectual disability, the Tribunal rejected all but one. It found most of the allegations were either unparticularised, unsupported by evidence, or unrelated to any protected characteristic. Even where a line manager’s conduct was insensitive or poorly judged, the Tribunal was clear that insensitivity is not discrimination without a causal link to a protected characteristic.
The Tribunal found that key factors influencing the dismissal included delays in supplying medical certificates. Those delays were directly linked to the Claimant’s disability. The Claimant was undergoing treatment abroad and suffering the effect of a prolonged asthma related illness. As the Respondent did not justify the dismissal as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the dismissal was discriminatory.
This in turn rendered the dismissal automatically unfair. The Tribunal also commented that, even absent discrimination, the Respondent’s decision fell outside the range of reasonable responses. It criticised the escalation to a formal hearing under the Policy after the Claimant had already returned to work and noted that the Respondent overstated the extent of non-compliance and unfairly questioned aspects of the Claimant’s medical evidence.
Despite these findings, the Tribunal refused reinstatement due to the irretrievable breakdown of trust. It awarded £15,000.00 for hurt and distress for the discriminatory dismissal but reduced the unfair-dismissal compensation to zero. This was because the Claimant unreasonable refused a prior open settlement offer equivalent to the statutory maximum that the Claimant could have been awarded and instead pursued a reinstatement claim which the Tribunal regarded as entirely unrealistic.
This case has important takeaways for both Employers and Employees.
For employers it reinforces that employers must distinguish clearly between attendance issues and capability concerns and avoid escalating to formal attendance action where the real issue lies elsewhere. When sickness related delays stem from a disability, treating them as non-compliance risks being held to have committed discriminatory conduct, unless it can be shown that the response is demonstrably proportionate. Employers should also ensure evidence is accurate and not overstated, exercise caution in “without prejudice” discussions, and not to be afraid of documenting settlement offers on an ‘open basis’. In this case, doing so ultimately eliminated the Respondent’s liability.
For employees, it underlines the serious financial risk of rejecting reasonable settlement offers. Further it reinforces that employees should be realistic about remedies such as reinstatement, where trust has broken down, pursuing reinstatement may be impractical and may undermine negotiating strength.
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent and was absent from work for an extended period due to a serious respiratory illness that exacerbated the Claimant’s existing asthma. During this absence, the Respondence became increasingly frustrated by delays in receiving original medical certificates and what it considered to be limited engagement with its Managing Attendance Policy (the Policy). The matter culminated in a formal hearing under the Policy resulting in the Claimant being dismissed on 25 March 2024.
The Claimant advanced 30 allegations of discrimination across disability, race and perceived intellectual disability, the Tribunal rejected all but one. It found most of the allegations were either unparticularised, unsupported by evidence, or unrelated to any protected characteristic. Even where a line manager’s conduct was insensitive or poorly judged, the Tribunal was clear that insensitivity is not discrimination without a causal link to a protected characteristic.
The Tribunal found that key factors influencing the dismissal included delays in supplying medical certificates. Those delays were directly linked to the Claimant’s disability. The Claimant was undergoing treatment abroad and suffering the effect of a prolonged asthma related illness. As the Respondent did not justify the dismissal as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the dismissal was discriminatory.
This in turn rendered the dismissal automatically unfair. The Tribunal also commented that, even absent discrimination, the Respondent’s decision fell outside the range of reasonable responses. It criticised the escalation to a formal hearing under the Policy after the Claimant had already returned to work and noted that the Respondent overstated the extent of non-compliance and unfairly questioned aspects of the Claimant’s medical evidence.
Despite these findings, the Tribunal refused reinstatement due to the irretrievable breakdown of trust. It awarded £15,000.00 for hurt and distress for the discriminatory dismissal but reduced the unfair-dismissal compensation to zero. This was because the Claimant unreasonable refused a prior open settlement offer equivalent to the statutory maximum that the Claimant could have been awarded and instead pursued a reinstatement claim which the Tribunal regarded as entirely unrealistic.
This case has important takeaways for both Employers and Employees.
For employers it reinforces that employers must distinguish clearly between attendance issues and capability concerns and avoid escalating to formal attendance action where the real issue lies elsewhere. When sickness related delays stem from a disability, treating them as non-compliance risks being held to have committed discriminatory conduct, unless it can be shown that the response is demonstrably proportionate. Employers should also ensure evidence is accurate and not overstated, exercise caution in “without prejudice” discussions, and not to be afraid of documenting settlement offers on an ‘open basis’. In this case, doing so ultimately eliminated the Respondent’s liability.
For employees, it underlines the serious financial risk of rejecting reasonable settlement offers. Further it reinforces that employees should be realistic about remedies such as reinstatement, where trust has broken down, pursuing reinstatement may be impractical and may undermine negotiating strength.
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent and was absent from work for an extended period due to a serious respiratory illness that exacerbated the Claimant’s existing asthma. During this absence, the Respondence became increasingly frustrated by delays in receiving original medical certificates and what it considered to be limited engagement with its Managing Attendance Policy (the Policy). The matter culminated in a formal hearing under the Policy resulting in the Claimant being dismissed on 25 March 2024.
The Claimant advanced 30 allegations of discrimination across disability, race and perceived intellectual disability, the Tribunal rejected all but one. It found most of the allegations were either unparticularised, unsupported by evidence, or unrelated to any protected characteristic. Even where a line manager’s conduct was insensitive or poorly judged, the Tribunal was clear that insensitivity is not discrimination without a causal link to a protected characteristic.
The Tribunal found that key factors influencing the dismissal included delays in supplying medical certificates. Those delays were directly linked to the Claimant’s disability. The Claimant was undergoing treatment abroad and suffering the effect of a prolonged asthma related illness. As the Respondent did not justify the dismissal as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the dismissal was discriminatory.
This in turn rendered the dismissal automatically unfair. The Tribunal also commented that, even absent discrimination, the Respondent’s decision fell outside the range of reasonable responses. It criticised the escalation to a formal hearing under the Policy after the Claimant had already returned to work and noted that the Respondent overstated the extent of non-compliance and unfairly questioned aspects of the Claimant’s medical evidence.
Despite these findings, the Tribunal refused reinstatement due to the irretrievable breakdown of trust. It awarded £15,000.00 for hurt and distress for the discriminatory dismissal but reduced the unfair-dismissal compensation to zero. This was because the Claimant unreasonable refused a prior open settlement offer equivalent to the statutory maximum that the Claimant could have been awarded and instead pursued a reinstatement claim which the Tribunal regarded as entirely unrealistic.
This case has important takeaways for both Employers and Employees.
For employers it reinforces that employers must distinguish clearly between attendance issues and capability concerns and avoid escalating to formal attendance action where the real issue lies elsewhere. When sickness related delays stem from a disability, treating them as non-compliance risks being held to have committed discriminatory conduct, unless it can be shown that the response is demonstrably proportionate. Employers should also ensure evidence is accurate and not overstated, exercise caution in “without prejudice” discussions, and not to be afraid of documenting settlement offers on an ‘open basis’. In this case, doing so ultimately eliminated the Respondent’s liability.
For employees, it underlines the serious financial risk of rejecting reasonable settlement offers. Further it reinforces that employees should be realistic about remedies such as reinstatement, where trust has broken down, pursuing reinstatement may be impractical and may undermine negotiating strength.
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent and was absent from work for an extended period due to a serious respiratory illness that exacerbated the Claimant’s existing asthma. During this absence, the Respondence became increasingly frustrated by delays in receiving original medical certificates and what it considered to be limited engagement with its Managing Attendance Policy (the Policy). The matter culminated in a formal hearing under the Policy resulting in the Claimant being dismissed on 25 March 2024.
The Claimant advanced 30 allegations of discrimination across disability, race and perceived intellectual disability, the Tribunal rejected all but one. It found most of the allegations were either unparticularised, unsupported by evidence, or unrelated to any protected characteristic. Even where a line manager’s conduct was insensitive or poorly judged, the Tribunal was clear that insensitivity is not discrimination without a causal link to a protected characteristic.
The Tribunal found that key factors influencing the dismissal included delays in supplying medical certificates. Those delays were directly linked to the Claimant’s disability. The Claimant was undergoing treatment abroad and suffering the effect of a prolonged asthma related illness. As the Respondent did not justify the dismissal as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the dismissal was discriminatory.
This in turn rendered the dismissal automatically unfair. The Tribunal also commented that, even absent discrimination, the Respondent’s decision fell outside the range of reasonable responses. It criticised the escalation to a formal hearing under the Policy after the Claimant had already returned to work and noted that the Respondent overstated the extent of non-compliance and unfairly questioned aspects of the Claimant’s medical evidence.
Despite these findings, the Tribunal refused reinstatement due to the irretrievable breakdown of trust. It awarded £15,000.00 for hurt and distress for the discriminatory dismissal but reduced the unfair-dismissal compensation to zero. This was because the Claimant unreasonable refused a prior open settlement offer equivalent to the statutory maximum that the Claimant could have been awarded and instead pursued a reinstatement claim which the Tribunal regarded as entirely unrealistic.
This case has important takeaways for both Employers and Employees.
For employers it reinforces that employers must distinguish clearly between attendance issues and capability concerns and avoid escalating to formal attendance action where the real issue lies elsewhere. When sickness related delays stem from a disability, treating them as non-compliance risks being held to have committed discriminatory conduct, unless it can be shown that the response is demonstrably proportionate. Employers should also ensure evidence is accurate and not overstated, exercise caution in “without prejudice” discussions, and not to be afraid of documenting settlement offers on an ‘open basis’. In this case, doing so ultimately eliminated the Respondent’s liability.
For employees, it underlines the serious financial risk of rejecting reasonable settlement offers. Further it reinforces that employees should be realistic about remedies such as reinstatement, where trust has broken down, pursuing reinstatement may be impractical and may undermine negotiating strength.