Healthcare assistant wins disability claim over BAME risk assessment failure
A healthcare assistant with 19 years' service succeeded in a disability discrimination claim after her employer failed to carry out a BAME risk assessment she had requested. The tribunal found the dismissal fair and rejected victimisation claims.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #ocd
- #bame-risk-assessment
- #long-term-sickness
- #ppe
- #annual-leave-delay
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a healthcare assistant from 22 April 2002 until 26 November 2021.
- The claimant had OCD, anxiety, and an eating disorder, accepted as disabilities.
- The respondent failed to conduct a BAME risk assessment despite the claimant requesting one in December 2020.
- The claimant was dismissed on grounds of capability due to long-term sickness absence.
- The tribunal found the dismissal fair and not victimisation.
- The claimant succeeded only on the failure to make reasonable adjustments regarding the BAME risk assessment.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment with the respondent or predecessor as a healthcare assistant.
-
Return from shielding
Claimant returned to work after shielding during COVID-19, working 12.5 hours per week.
-
Annual leave request
Claimant requested annual leave to start new medication, supported by CPN letter.
-
BAME risk assessment offered
Respondent invited claimant to complete a BAME risk assessment; claimant agreed but it was never done.
-
Annual leave approved
Respondent confirmed claimant could take annual leave for medication, after delay.
-
Sickness absence begins
Claimant started long-term sickness absence due to OCD and anxiety, continuing until dismissal.
-
Occupational health referral
Respondent referred claimant to Occupational Health after 28 days of absence.
-
ET1 claim submitted
Claimant submitted first employment tribunal claim for disability discrimination.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed on grounds of ill health capability after Stage 3 review.
-
Amendment to claim
Claimant applied to add unfair dismissal and victimisation claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disability (OCD, anxiety, and eating disorder) by not carrying out a BAME risk assessment, whether the dismissal was fair, and whether the claimant was victimised for bringing a claim.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the employer did not make reasonable adjustments by failing to conduct a BAME risk assessment, which was a provision, criterion or practice that put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. The dismissal was found fair due to capability, and no victimisation occurred.
No compensation has been awarded at this stage; a remedy hearing will determine any award.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow through on agreed reasonable adjustments, such as risk assessments, to avoid disability discrimination claims.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a fair process, but a fair dismissal can still be upheld if capability is genuinely the reason.
- Victimisation claims require evidence of detriment caused by a protected act; simply bringing a claim does not automatically protect against dismissal if the dismissal is fair.
- Disability discrimination claims can succeed even if the overall dismissal is fair, so employers should address all reasonable adjustment requests.
What this case shows
This case highlights the importance of employers following through on agreed reasonable adjustments. The healthcare assistant, who had worked for the respondent for 19 years, had OCD, anxiety, and an eating disorder, all accepted as disabilities. She requested a BAME risk assessment in December 2020, which the employer agreed to but never carried out. The tribunal found this failure amounted to a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have simply conducted the risk assessment as promised. The delay and failure to act put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. However, the tribunal also found that the subsequent dismissal for capability was fair, as the employer had followed its sickness absence procedure and the claimant had been absent for a long period. The employer's decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
Why this matters
This case shows that even when a dismissal is fair, employers can still be liable for failing to make reasonable adjustments. Employees with disabilities should ensure they request adjustments in writing and follow up if they are not implemented. For employers, it is a reminder that agreeing to an adjustment and then not doing it can lead to a successful discrimination claim, even if the employment ends fairly for other reasons.
Similar cases
Production operative dismissed during long-term sick leave: unfair dismissal claim fails on service
A production operative who was dismissed while on sick leave for plantar fasciitis and depression lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service. All disability discrimination claims were also dismissed.
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.
Dismissed during long-term sickness: disability discrimination and unfair dismissal at Jaguar Land Rover
A production operative with six years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to disability-related sickness absence. The tribunal awarded £147,572.75 in compensation.