Faculty manager with 23 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy selection tainted by disability bias
A tribunal found that Canterbury Christ Church University unfairly dismissed a faculty manager and discriminated against her because of her disability when it decided she was not appointable to a new role due to her ill health. She was awarded £32,684.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Ms McAuley was employed by the University from 1997 to 2020, most recently as Faculty Manager of Business Operations.
- She was disabled due to depression and generalised anxiety disorder.
- The University merged two faculties, reducing Faculty Manager posts from five to three.
- Ms McAuley was placed at risk of redundancy and applied for two Faculty Manager roles but was unsuccessful.
- The Tribunal found that the selection decision was based on her ill health, not her ability, and that the process was unfair.
- The dismissal was both unfair and an act of discrimination arising from disability.
Timeline
-
Appointed Faculty Manager
Ms McAuley was appointed Faculty Manager of Business Operations within the Faculty of Education.
-
Faculty restructured
The Faculty of Education was restructured; Ms McAuley successfully applied for a new role.
-
Consultation begins
Formal consultation on merging the Faculty of Education and Faculty of Arts and Humanities began.
-
Sick leave starts
Ms McAuley went on sick leave due to a mental health breakdown.
-
Occupational health assessment
Occupational health psychiatrist Dr Zoettl assessed Ms McAuley and found her temporarily unfit for work.
-
Selection for Operations role
The selection panel considered Ms McAuley for the Faculty Manager Operations role and decided she was not appointable due to ill health.
-
Selection for Quality role
Ms McAuley was also unsuccessful in her application for the Faculty Manager Quality role.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Ms McAuley was sent a letter of dismissal on grounds of redundancy.
-
Effective date of termination
Ms McAuley's employment ended.
-
Liability judgment
The Tribunal found that Ms McAuley was unfairly dismissed and that the dismissal was discrimination arising from disability.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was unfair and whether it amounted to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of her disability – specifically, her absence from work and inability to attend interviews due to her mental health condition.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that her dismissal was an act of discrimination arising from disability.
Key reasons for the decision:
- The selection panel decided the claimant was not appointable based on her ill health, rather than her ability to do the job.
- The university failed to make reasonable adjustments, such as postponing interviews or allowing alternative formats, to accommodate her disability.
- The redundancy process was procedurally unfair, including inadequate consultation.
Compensation:
- Total award: £32,684.38
- Basic award: not separately stated
- Compensatory award: not separately stated
- Polkey reduction: 33% (reflecting the chance she would have been dismissed anyway)
- No contributory fault deduction
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must not let an employee's disability-related absence influence redundancy selection decisions – focus on ability, not health.
- Reasonable adjustments, such as delaying interviews or conducting them remotely, should be considered for disabled employees during redundancy processes.
- A fair redundancy procedure requires meaningful consultation and objective selection criteria, especially for long-serving employees.
- Discrimination arising from disability can occur even if the employer did not intend to discriminate – the key is the link between the unfavourable treatment and the disability.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the risks employers face when redundancy selection becomes entangled with an employee's disability. The claimant, a faculty manager with 23 years' service, was placed at risk of redundancy during a faculty merger. While on sick leave for depression and anxiety, she applied for two new roles. The selection panel decided she was 'not appointable' because of her ill health, without considering whether she could perform the role with reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal found that the university's focus on her sickness absence, rather than her skills and experience, made the selection decision discriminatory. It also found the redundancy procedure unfair, as the consultation was inadequate and the claimant was not given a proper opportunity to demonstrate her suitability.
What the university could have done differently
The university could have avoided liability by separating the redundancy process from the claimant's health. Instead of ruling her out because she was on sick leave, it should have considered adjustments – such as postponing interviews or allowing her to participate remotely. A fair process would have assessed her against the role requirements, not her absence. The tribunal noted that the university's occupational health report did not say she was permanently unfit, yet the panel treated her as such.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case reinforces that disability discrimination protections apply during redundancy. Employers cannot use a disability-related absence as a reason to dismiss or fail to appoint, without first considering adjustments. The Polkey reduction of 33% – reflecting the chance she might have been dismissed anyway – shows that even where there is some fault on the employer's side, compensation can be reduced if dismissal was likely in any event. However, the award of over £32,000 demonstrates that tribunals will penalise employers who cut corners in redundancy processes, particularly when disability is involved.
Similar cases
Dismissed while on long-term sick leave: a capability process that fell short
An employment tribunal has ruled that a hire controller with degenerative disc disease was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of her disability. The respondent, Torrent Trackside Ltd, dismissed her without warning after 10 months' absence.
Dismissed while on sick leave: employer ignored offer of imminent return
A tribunal found that EE Limited unfairly dismissed a broadband technical support worker with panic disorder after it refused to wait a week for her to return to work, and also discriminated against her because of her disability.
27-year social worker dismissed after 9 months' sick leave: tribunal upholds council's decision
Birmingham City Council fairly dismissed a Senior Practitioner with 27 years' service after a 9-month sickness absence for bereavement stress. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
Dismissed during long-term sick leave: a capability decision that went too fast
A behaviour lead with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after her employer relied on outdated medical reports and failed to follow its own sickness procedure. The tribunal awarded £23,222, including £9,000 for injury to feelings.