Support worker dismissed after 6 months' sick leave: employer's decision upheld
A support worker with depression was dismissed after six months' sick leave. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding the council acted reasonably and proportionately.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was a support worker for homeless persons and rough sleepers.
- She was on sick leave from December 2021 to June 2022 due to depressive episodes and anxiety.
- The respondent conceded she was disabled and knew of her condition when dismissing her.
- Two occupational health reports were obtained; the second stated she was unfit for work for at least three more months.
- The respondent dismissed her for capability reasons on 17 June 2022.
- The claimant's appeal was dismissed on 3 October 2022.
Timeline
-
Discussion about mental health
Claimant and line manager Mr Benson discuss her mental health struggles.
-
Sick leave begins
Claimant goes on sick leave with depressive disorder.
-
First occupational health report
Report states claimant is unfit for work but likely to return in 6-8 weeks.
-
Meeting about absence
Meeting with Mr Benson and Ms Parfitt to discuss absence and need for further medical advice.
-
Second occupational health report
Report states claimant is unfit for work and likely to remain so for at least three months; no adjustments recommended.
-
Review meeting
Mr Benson meets claimant; she confirms she remains unfit and cannot give return date.
-
Dismissal
Final ill health meeting; claimant is dismissed for capability reasons.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appeals the dismissal decision.
-
Appeal dismissed
Claimant does not attend appeal hearing; appeal is dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal of a disabled employee for long-term sickness was both a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim under disability discrimination law, and within the range of reasonable responses for unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both the disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims.
- It held that the council's aim of managing the service effectively was legitimate, and dismissal was proportionate given the six-month absence, no return date, and no redeployment options.
- The council had obtained two occupational health reports, consulted the employee, and followed its capability procedure, so the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for capability if they have up-to-date medical evidence and have followed a proper consultation process.
- A six-month absence with no clear return date may justify dismissal, especially in a role that requires regular attendance.
- Even where disability is conceded, dismissal can be proportionate if the employer's aim is legitimate and no reasonable adjustments are available.
- Employees should engage with the process and attend appeal hearings, as failure to do so can undermine their case.
- Regular contact from an employer during sick leave is not necessarily unfair – it can be part of reasonable management.
What this case shows in practice
A support worker with depression was dismissed after six months of continuous sick leave. The council had obtained two occupational health reports, the second stating she was unfit for work for at least three more months with no adjustments recommended. Despite the employee's disability, the tribunal found the dismissal was fair and not discriminatory.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employee argued she was 'bombarded' with emails, but the tribunal found contact was routine and necessary. She also did not attend her appeal hearing. Engaging with the process and providing a clearer medical prognosis might have improved her position, but the evidence suggested she was unlikely to return to work in the foreseeable future.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case confirms that employers can dismiss long-term sick employees if they have recent medical evidence, have consulted properly, and have no alternative roles. The fact the employee had only six months' service meant the range of reasonable responses was narrower, but the council's thorough process still satisfied the legal test. For employees, it highlights the importance of maintaining communication and exploring all options before dismissal is considered.
Similar cases
Meter reader with 16 years' service unfairly dismissed for ill health capability
A meter reader who was dismissed while on long-term sick leave after a motorbike accident has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found that Morrison Data Services Ltd failed to obtain an up-to-date occupational health report before deciding to dismiss.
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Dismissed after 10-month absence: employer's reasonable adjustments were enough
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an assistant branch manager with 28 years' service who was absent for 10 months with anxiety. The employer had offered multiple adjustments but the claimant insisted on a customer ban.
Clinical Support Worker awarded statutory redundancy payment after 19 years' service
A tribunal awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £2,077.16 to a Clinical Support Worker with 19 years' service, finding that his refusal of an alternative role was not unreasonable.