Agency worker loses disability and whistleblowing claims over Amazon ramp-down
A recruitment agency worker assigned to Amazon lost his claims for disability discrimination and whistleblowing detriment after the tribunal found his assignment ended due to a neutral ranking system, not his depression or complaints.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #protected-disclosure
- #depression
- #stomach-pain
- #working-time
- #assignment-termination
- #amazon-ramp-down
Key facts
- Mr Polonski was employed by Cordant Recruitment Ltd as a Flexible Colleague and assigned to work at Amazon's Leeds warehouse from 1 October 2020.
- He suffered from depression since 2009, which the tribunal accepted as a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
- Mr Polonski's assignment at Amazon was terminated on 21 January 2021 as part of a reduction of 385 agency workers after the Christmas peak.
- Amazon ranked employees using objective criteria including absence records; Mr Polonski was ranked 98th due to his sickness absence.
- Mr Polonski raised two disclosures: stomach pain due to heavy workload and working 11 consecutive days, but the tribunal found these were not made in the public interest.
- The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding no discrimination or detriment because the termination was due to Amazon's ranking system, not his disability or disclosures.
Timeline
-
Contract signed
Mr Polonski signed his employment contract with Cordant Recruitment Ltd electronically.
-
Started Amazon assignment
Mr Polonski began working at Amazon's LBA8 warehouse in Leeds as a Flexible Colleague.
-
First complaint about shifts
Mr Polonski complained to PMP managers that he was scheduled to work 11 consecutive days, which he believed was unlawful.
-
Shift complaint escalated
Mr Polonski raised his shift concerns with Amazon managers Rob and Anna, who approached the PMP desk with him.
-
Stomach pain complaint
Mr Polonski complained of stomach pain to Harshal at the PMP desk and left work early.
-
Email about stomach pain
Mr Polonski emailed PMP complaining of stomach pain due to heavy workload and requested reduced shifts.
-
Amazon release list issued
Amazon instructed PMP to remove 90 employees, including Mr Polonski, from the assignment by 24 January 2021.
-
Informed of assignment end
Mr Smith emailed Mr Polonski informing him that his Amazon assignment would end on 21 January 2021.
-
Last day at Amazon
Mr Polonski's assignment at Amazon ended.
-
Email from Mr Kempster
Mr Kempster emailed Mr Polonski confirming his employment with PMP was still active and he could seek other assignments.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the worker was discriminated against because of something arising from his disability (depression) when his Amazon assignment was terminated, and whether he was subjected to a detriment for making protected disclosures about working hours and stomach pain.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of disability discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
Key reasons:
- The assignment ended as part of a large-scale reduction of 385 agency workers after the Christmas peak, using an objective ranking system.
- The worker was ranked 98th due to his sickness absence, which was not linked to his disability or disclosures.
- The disclosures about working 11 consecutive days and stomach pain were not made in the public interest, so they were not protected disclosures.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are an agency worker, your assignment can end for business reasons like a headcount reduction, even if you have a disability, as long as the selection is based on objective criteria.
- To be a protected disclosure, your complaint must be in the public interest – personal grievances about your own working conditions usually do not qualify.
- Keep a record of any disability-related adjustments you request and how your employer responds, as this can help show whether discrimination played a role in any detriment.
- If you are selected for redundancy or ramp-down based on attendance, having a disability may not protect you if the selection criteria are applied neutrally and you do not request adjustments.
This case shows how difficult it can be for agency workers to prove discrimination when their assignment ends as part of a large-scale business decision. The worker, who suffered from depression, was assigned to Amazon through recruitment agency Cordant Recruitment Ltd. After the Christmas peak, Amazon reduced its agency workforce by 385 people. The worker was selected for removal based on an objective ranking system that considered attendance and performance – and his sickness absence placed him near the bottom.
Why the claims failed
The tribunal accepted that the worker's depression was a disability, but found no link between his disability and the decision to end his assignment. The ranking system was applied equally to all agency workers, and there was no evidence that the employer knew his absences were disability-related or that they failed to make reasonable adjustments. Similarly, his complaints about working 11 consecutive days and stomach pain were not protected disclosures because they were personal grievances, not made in the public interest.
What the employer did right
Cordant Recruitment had a clear, objective process for selecting which workers to release, based on data provided by Amazon. They also kept the worker on their books after the assignment ended, offering him the chance to take other roles. This helped show that the decision was not motivated by discrimination or retaliation for his complaints.
What this means for similar claims
For workers in similar situations, the key takeaway is that a neutral, business-driven decision can override individual circumstances, even where a disability exists. To succeed in a discrimination claim, you need evidence that the employer's decision was materially influenced by your disability – not just that you happened to be disabled when the decision was made. And for whistleblowing claims, the disclosure must be about something that affects others, not just your own working conditions.
Similar cases
Care worker resigned after 'so bipolar' comment and sudden role change: constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed
A care assessment officer who was told she was 'so bipolar' and had her role changed with less than 24 hours' notice has been allowed to add protected disclosure claims to her constructive dismissal case.
Registered Nurse lost constructive dismissal claim over protected disclosure and discrimination
A tribunal dismissed all claims by a dementia ward nurse who resigned after suspension, finding no link between his protected disclosure and the employer's actions.
Facilities manager dismissed after sham redundancy and disciplinary process
A facilities manager with dyslexia and heart failure was unfairly dismissed after his employer turned a redundancy process into a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found the process was a sham and the real reason was a breakdown in trust and confidence.
Shouting at the boss: dismissal for irretrievable breakdown of trust upheld
A married couple who worked as wedding events and facilities managers were fairly dismissed after a heated meeting where the husband shouted at the company owner. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and whistleblowing detriment.