Partial win Employment Tribunal · 20 October 2023

Customer service manager overlooked for hours due to disability: constructive dismissal succeeds

A Customer Service Manager with 6 years' service was constructively dismissed after being repeatedly overlooked for increased hours while a colleague was given a 30-hour contract. The tribunal found direct disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.

2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026

Case details

Key facts

  • The claimant was employed as a Customer Service Manager from 13 December 2016 to November 2022.
  • In November 2021, due to shop closure, the claimant accepted a 17-hour per week contract at Watling Street, believing more hours would become available.
  • From January 2022, the claimant was consistently overlooked for overtime and her requests for increased contractual hours were ignored.
  • In June 2022, a colleague (Tejas) was given a 30-hour contract at the same shop, despite the claimant's ongoing requests for increased hours.
  • The claimant resigned on 28 November 2022, citing unresolved issues and discrimination.
  • The tribunal found that the respondent's perception of the claimant as inflexible due to her disability was a significant reason for not offering her increased hours.

Timeline

  1. Employment started

    Claimant began working as a Customer Service Manager at Ladbrokes.

  2. Shop closure announced

    The respondent announced the closure of the Cornhill shop where the claimant worked.

  3. Consultation meeting

    Claimant agreed to a 17-hour per week contract at Watling Street, believing more hours would become available.

  4. Started at Watling Street

    Claimant began working at the Watling Street shop.

  5. Manager sought to formalise 17-hour contract

    Mr. Dugroo told the claimant he wanted to formalise her reduction to 17 hours; claimant objected.

  6. Claimant emailed complaint

    Claimant emailed Mr. Ul-Haque complaining about the reduction in hours and requesting a return to 30 hours.

  7. Claimant emailed regional manager

    Claimant sent a formal complaint to Colin Hughes alleging discrimination and poor treatment.

  8. Occupational health report

    OH report recommended flexible working and noted claimant's desire to increase hours to 30.

  9. Tejas given 30-hour contract

    Tejas, a comparator, was given a 30-hour contract at Watling Street.

  10. Claimant discovered Tejas's hours

    Claimant saw rotas and learned Tejas had been given a 30-hour contract.

  11. Claimant went off sick

    Claimant went off sick with depression.

  12. Claimant resigned

    Claimant resigned, citing unresolved issues and discrimination.

The outcome

The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of direct disability discrimination in relation to the failure to increase her hours, and found that she was constructively unfairly dismissed.

Key reasons:

  • The respondent's perception that the claimant was inflexible due to her disability was a significant reason for not offering her increased hours.
  • A comparator (Tejas) was given a 30-hour contract despite having less service and no disability, while the claimant's repeated requests were ignored.
  • The respondent failed to investigate the claimant's complaints or consider her occupational health recommendations.

No compensation was awarded at this stage; a remedy hearing will be listed separately.

Lessons & takeaways

  • Employers must not make assumptions about an employee's flexibility based on their disability — this can amount to direct discrimination.
  • If you have a disability and are overlooked for opportunities given to non-disabled colleagues, you may have a claim for direct discrimination.
  • Constructive dismissal can arise from a series of acts that cumulatively destroy trust and confidence, not just a single incident.
  • Keep a record of all requests for adjustments or opportunities — the tribunal will compare how you were treated versus others.

When a promise of more hours turns into discrimination

This case shows how a seemingly straightforward change in working hours can spiral into a discrimination claim. The claimant, a Customer Service Manager with six years' service, agreed to reduce her hours from 30 to 17 per week when her shop closed, on the understanding that more hours would become available. Instead, she was consistently overlooked for overtime and her requests for increased contractual hours were ignored.

Meanwhile, a colleague with less service and no disability was given a 30-hour contract at the same shop. The tribunal found that the real reason for this disparity was the respondent's perception that the claimant was inflexible because of her disability — a classic case of 'discrimination by perception'.

What the employer could have done differently

Ladbrokes had an occupational health report recommending flexible working and noting the claimant's desire to increase her hours. Yet the respondent took no action. When the claimant raised complaints, they were not properly investigated. The tribunal noted that a key manager who could have explained the decision was not called as a witness, and no adequate explanation was given for his absence.

A fair process would have involved considering the claimant's requests alongside those of other staff, documenting the reasons for any decisions, and addressing her complaints promptly. Instead, the claimant was left feeling that her disability was being held against her.

Why this matters for similar claims

This case is a reminder that direct discrimination does not require overt hostility — it can arise from well-meaning but misguided assumptions about what a disabled person can or cannot do. It also illustrates that constructive unfair dismissal can succeed where an employer's conduct, taken as a whole, destroys the trust and confidence essential to the employment relationship.

For employees in similar situations, the key is to document every request and response, and to raise grievances formally. For employers, the lesson is clear: treat each employee as an individual, and never let assumptions about disability drive decisions about opportunities.

Similar cases

Claim dismissed · Dec 2023

Retire-and-return scheme leads to constructive dismissal claim, but breach of contract and age discrimination claims struck out

A consultant clinical scientist with 23 years' service resigned after a 'retire and return' scheme reduced her role. The tribunal struck out her breach of contract and age discrimination claims, but allowed her unfair dismissal claim to proceed.

retire-and-returncomparatorstrike-out
Partial win · Sept 2023

Coach driver who resigned over fume fears wins constructive dismissal claim

A coach driver who repeatedly raised concerns about diesel fumes in his minibus and resigned after a poorly handled disciplinary meeting has won his claim for constructive unfair dismissal.

constructive-dismissalhealth-and-safetyprotected-disclosure
Claimant won £1,717 · Jun 2023

Midwife wins constructive dismissal after trust's 'grossly inadequate' grievance investigation

A midwife with three years' service was constructively dismissed after her employer's failure to properly investigate her bullying complaint. The tribunal awarded £1,717, including an ACAS uplift.

constructive-dismissalgrievance-procedureacas-code-uplift
Partial win £16,725 · Apr 2023

Tower crane operator with 13 years' service wins constructive dismissal claim after being removed from site without explanation

A tower crane operator who resigned after being removed from a site without explanation and ignored during sick leave has won his constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal awarded £16,724.72.

constructive-dismissalfailure-to-investigatehealth-and-safety-concerns