Bid Manager with 12 years' service awarded £964k after disability discrimination and victimisation
A tribunal found that Mears Group plc unfairly dismissed a Bid Manager with spinal injuries and victimised her for raising concerns about reasonable adjustments. She was awarded £964,465.37.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant sustained serious spinal injuries on 26 July 2015 and was disabled from that date.
- The respondent appointed Richard Hughes as Head of Bid Management in February 2019 without giving the claimant an opportunity to apply.
- The claimant was dismissed on 29 March 2019 for 'some other substantial reason' after raising concerns about the appointment and reasonable adjustments.
- The respondent conceded the dismissal was unfair due to procedural failings.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability and an act of victimisation.
- The claimant was awarded £964,465.37 in total compensation, including an ACAS uplift of £50,000.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for the respondent as a Bid Manager.
-
Spinal injury
The claimant sustained serious spinal injuries, leading to a disability.
-
Restructure and demotion
The claimant was demoted from Head of Bid Management (North) to Bid Manager following a restructure.
-
Sick leave began
The claimant went on sick leave due to ill health, including anxiety and depression related to her disability and bereavement.
-
Appointment of Head of Bid Management
The respondent appointed Richard Hughes as Head of Bid Management without consulting the claimant.
-
First consultation meeting
The claimant raised concerns about not being considered for the Head of Bid Management role and about inadequate reasonable adjustments.
-
Second consultation and interview
The claimant attended a consultation meeting and selection interview for roles in the new structure.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by telephone for 'some other substantial reason'.
-
Dismissal letter
The respondent sent a letter confirming dismissal, citing the claimant's conduct during the interview.
-
Appeal outcome
The appeal was rejected, with the respondent changing the dismissal reason to redundancy.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal awarded £964,465.37 in compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's failure to consider the claimant for a promotion and her subsequent dismissal amounted to disability discrimination and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal found that Mears Group plc unfairly dismissed the Bid Manager and discriminated against her because of her disability. It also upheld a victimisation claim after she raised concerns about reasonable adjustments.
The key reasons were:
- The employer failed to give the claimant an opportunity to apply for a Head of Bid Management role, which was unfavourable treatment arising from her disability.
- The dismissal was also unfavourable treatment arising from disability and an act of victimisation.
- The employer conceded the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
Compensation:
- Total award: £964,465.37
- This includes an ACAS uplift of £50,000 for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.
- No Polkey reduction was applied as there was a 0% chance the claimant would have been dismissed had fair procedures been followed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees before making decisions about promotion or restructuring.
- Raising concerns about disability discrimination is a protected act; victimising an employee for doing so can lead to substantial compensation.
- Procedural fairness is crucial in dismissals; even if a fair reason exists, failing to follow proper process can render the dismissal unfair.
- The ACAS Code of Practice applies to disciplinary and grievance procedures; failure to follow it can result in an uplift of up to 25% on compensation.
- Long-serving employees with disabilities are entitled to particular consideration; a 12-year service record makes a dismissal harder to justify.
A case of disability discrimination and victimisation
This case shows how an employer's failure to properly handle a disabled employee's return to work and concerns about reasonable adjustments can lead to significant legal liability. The claimant, a Bid Manager with 12 years' service, sustained serious spinal injuries in 2015 and was disabled from that date. After a restructure in 2017 she was demoted, and in 2018 she went on sick leave due to ill health, including anxiety and depression.
In February 2019, Mears Group appointed a new Head of Bid Management without consulting the claimant or giving her an opportunity to apply. When she raised concerns about this and about inadequate reasonable adjustments, the employer dismissed her a few weeks later, citing 'some other substantial reason' – later changed to redundancy on appeal. The tribunal found that the dismissal was not only procedurally unfair (which the employer conceded) but also amounted to unfavourable treatment because of something arising from her disability and an act of victimisation.
What the employer could have done differently
Mears Group could have avoided this outcome by following basic good practice. First, they should have considered the claimant for the Head of Bid Management role, given her long service and experience. Second, they should have engaged with her requests for reasonable adjustments, such as a phased return or flexible working. Third, they should have conducted a fair consultation process before dismissing her, rather than telephoning her with the decision. The tribunal noted that there was a 0% chance she would have been dismissed had fair procedures been followed.
Why this result matters
The £964,465.37 award – including a £50,000 ACAS uplift for failing to follow the Code of Practice – sends a strong message to employers. Disability discrimination and victimisation claims can result in very high compensation, especially where the employee has long service and the employer's conduct is found to be deliberate or reckless. For employees in similar situations, this case highlights the importance of raising concerns in writing and seeking legal advice early. It also shows that tribunals will look critically at employers who restructure or dismiss without considering the needs of disabled staff.
Similar cases
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.
Plumber with back injury forced to resign after employer ignored adjustments
A plumber with six years' service was awarded £134,411 after his employer failed to implement occupational health recommendations, cut his sick pay, and ignored his grievance. The tribunal found constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
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.
Warehouse operative dismissed after whistleblowing and long-term sick leave: victimisation and disability discrimination
A warehouse operative with 8 years' service was unfairly dismissed, victimised, and discriminated against after reporting safety issues and then being absent due to work-related stress. The tribunal awarded over £16,000 in compensation.