Director with ADHD and PTSD awarded £3.78m after backdated dismissal letter
A director was dismissed while on sick leave, with the council backdating the dismissal letter to appear to predate her grievance. The tribunal awarded £3.78 million for disability discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was diagnosed with ADHD in November 2016 and PTSD in October 2017.
- The second respondent was aware of the claimant's PTSD from 13 November 2017 and ADHD from 20 April 2018.
- The claimant's probation was extended by three months on 3 May 2018, the day after she began sick leave.
- The claimant was dismissed on 9 August 2018 while on sick leave, without warning or opportunity to make representations.
- The tribunal found the second respondent and other senior officers backdated the dismissal letter to appear to predate the claimant's grievance.
- The claimant was awarded £3,780,587.39 in total compensation, including £60,000 for injury to feelings and £60,000 for psychiatric injury.
Timeline
-
Claimant starts employment
Claimant began as Director of PSR. On her first day, she told the second respondent about her PTSD.
-
Second respondent learns of ADHD
Barry Quirk told the second respondent that the claimant had ADHD, describing it as her brain not working like other people's.
-
Meeting and panic attack
The second respondent met with the claimant, focusing on her ADHD. Later that evening, the claimant had a panic attack and was taken to A&E.
-
Decision to extend probation
The second respondent decided to extend the claimant's probation by three months, the day after she went on sick leave.
-
Claimant receives probation extension letter
The claimant received the letter dated 10 May, postmarked 17 May, informing her of the probation extension.
-
Decision to dismiss
The second respondent decided to dismiss the claimant, with the letter backdated to 31 July but actually signed on 2 August.
-
Claimant's solicitors send holding grievance
The claimant's solicitors sent a letter putting the respondents on notice of a grievance, which was a protected act.
-
Dismissal effective
The claimant's employment ended on the expiry of her extended probation.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found the claimant was disabled and upheld complaints of harassment, direct discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability.
-
Remedy judgment
The tribunal awarded the claimant £3,780,587.39 in compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the director was disabled due to ADHD and PTSD, and whether the council discriminated against her by extending her probation, dismissing her while on sick leave, and backdating the dismissal letter.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld complaints of harassment, direct discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability. It found that the council's treatment of the director, including the probation extension and dismissal, was discriminatory and that the dismissal letter was backdated to appear to predate her grievance.
Compensation:
- Total award: £3,780,587.39
- Including £60,000 for injury to feelings and £60,000 for psychiatric injury.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must not backdate dismissal letters or other documents to undermine an employee's grievance.
- Disability discrimination claims can succeed even if the employer knew about the disability but failed to make reasonable adjustments.
- Dismissing an employee while on sick leave without warning or opportunity to respond is likely to be discriminatory.
- Probation extensions imposed without proper process can be evidence of discrimination.
- The ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures must be followed; failure to do so can lead to increased compensation.
What this case shows
This case highlights how employers can fall foul of disability discrimination law when they fail to properly manage employees with mental health conditions. The director, who had ADHD and PTSD, was dismissed while on sick leave after her probation was extended. The council backdated the dismissal letter to make it appear as though it was sent before she raised a grievance, which the tribunal found to be a deliberate attempt to undermine her.
What the council could have done differently
The council could have avoided liability by following proper procedures. It should have engaged with the director's disabilities, considered reasonable adjustments, and given her a fair opportunity to respond before making decisions about her probation and dismissal. Instead, it acted hastily and dishonestly, leading to a substantial award.
Why this result matters
The £3.78 million award, including £120,000 for injury to feelings and psychiatric harm, sends a strong message that disability discrimination will not be tolerated. Employers must take mental health conditions seriously and ensure that their processes are fair and transparent, especially when dealing with long-serving or senior employees.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Nursery worker with disability unfairly dismissed and discriminated against
A nursery worker was unfairly dismissed and subjected to disability discrimination by Monkton Under 5 Playgroup. The tribunal awarded £27,676 in compensation, including £16,200 for injury to feelings.
Victimisation after reporting sexual harassment: a teenager dismissed for speaking up
A 16-year-old front-of-house worker was dismissed three days after her mother confronted the manager about sexual harassment by a chef. The Manchester tribunal awarded £13,886 for victimisation.
Constructive dismissal after whistleblowing and disability harassment: a partial win for former employee
A former employee who resigned after being required to attend a disciplinary investigation meeting following protected disclosures has won claims for detriment, disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation, but her constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. She was awarded £12,822.78.