Locality manager with cancer wins constructive dismissal claim over job advert for her replacement
A locality manager who was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer was constructively unfairly dismissed after her employer advertised her role as a fixed-term post while she was on sick leave. The tribunal also upheld a claim of discrimination arising from disability.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer in February 2019 and commenced sickness absence.
- The respondent advertised the claimant's role as a fixed-term contract with 'the possibility of full-time', which the tribunal found to be unfavourable treatment.
- The respondent failed to advertise the Area Director role internally, preventing the claimant from applying.
- The claimant's grievance and appeal were delayed, with multiple changes of appeal chair.
- The claimant resigned on 6 September 2019, citing loss of trust and confidence.
- The tribunal upheld the constructive unfair dismissal claim and a claim of discrimination arising from disability (section 15) regarding the job advert.
Timeline
-
Claimant commenced sickness absence
The claimant started sick leave due to back pain, later diagnosed as cancer-related.
-
Claimant diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer
The claimant informed the respondent of her diagnosis and requested full sick pay.
-
Job advert placed for claimant's replacement
The respondent advertised a fixed-term locality manager role with 'the possibility of full-time', which the claimant interpreted as permanent replacement.
-
Claimant informed of interim replacement and new Area Director
The respondent told the claimant that Simon Rogers would cover her role and Melanie Isherwood had been appointed as Area Director for Wales.
-
Claimant submitted formal grievance
The claimant raised a grievance alleging disability discrimination, including the job advert and failure to advertise the Area Director role internally.
-
Grievance hearing
Moira Jevons-Hunt conducted the grievance hearing by telephone.
-
Grievance outcome
The grievance was partially upheld; the respondent acknowledged the failure to advertise internally but denied discrimination.
-
Email access issue resolved
The claimant's email access was restored after IT support; the tribunal found no evidence of deliberate blocking.
-
Grievance appeal hearing
Michael Fullerton chaired the appeal hearing.
-
Grievance appeal outcome
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original grievance outcome.
-
Claimant resigned
The claimant resigned with immediate effect, citing loss of trust and confidence due to the respondent's treatment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's actions, including the wording of a job advert for the claimant's replacement while she was on sick leave with cancer, and the failure to advertise a promotion opportunity internally, amounted to disability discrimination and/or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, justifying her resignation and a claim of constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal and her claim of discrimination arising from disability (section 15 Equality Act 2010) in relation to the job advert. Other discrimination claims, including direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation, were dismissed.
The key reasons were:
- The job advert for the claimant's replacement, which stated 'fixed-term contract with the possibility of full-time', was unfavourable treatment arising from her disability (cancer-related absence).
- The employer's failure to advertise the Area Director role internally, and the delays in handling her grievance and appeal, contributed to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
- The claimant's resignation on 6 September 2019 was in response to this breach, making her constructively unfairly dismissed.
No compensation has been determined yet; a remedy hearing will be listed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are on long-term sick leave, check whether your employer is advertising your role – the wording of the advert could be evidence of discrimination.
- Employers should handle grievances promptly and avoid changing the appeal chair multiple times, as delays can be seen as a breach of trust and confidence.
- Internal vacancies should be advertised to all staff, including those on sick leave, to avoid claims of unfavourable treatment.
- A diagnosis of cancer is likely to be a disability under the Equality Act 2010, so employers must be careful not to treat the employee unfavourably because of their absence or condition.
When a job advert becomes evidence of discrimination
This case shows how a seemingly routine decision – advertising a role while an employee is on sick leave – can have serious legal consequences. The claimant, a locality manager with six years' service, was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer in February 2019 and started sick leave. Just eight days after her diagnosis, her employer, The Regard Partnership Limited, placed an advert for her role as a fixed-term contract with 'the possibility of full-time'. The tribunal found that this wording, combined with the failure to advertise a promotion opportunity internally, amounted to unfavourable treatment because of her disability.
The employer's handling of the claimant's grievance also contributed to the breakdown of trust. Her grievance was raised in February 2019, but the appeal process dragged on until September, with multiple changes of appeal chair. The tribunal noted that these delays, along with the job advert, were part of a course of conduct that breached the implied term of trust and confidence, entitling the claimant to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
The Regard Partnership could have avoided this outcome by taking a more supportive approach. First, they should have consulted the claimant before advertising her role, and the advert should have made clear that it was a temporary cover arrangement. Second, internal vacancies like the Area Director role should have been advertised to all staff, including those on sick leave. Third, grievances should be dealt with promptly and consistently, without changing the decision-maker multiple times. The tribunal found that these failures, taken together, justified the claimant's resignation.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employers must be careful when managing employees with serious illnesses. The Equality Act 2010 protects employees from discrimination arising from disability, which includes unfavourable treatment because of something connected to their disability – such as sickness absence. The wording of a job advert can be enough to establish a claim. For employees in a similar situation, this case shows that resigning in response to a fundamental breach of contract can lead to a successful constructive dismissal claim, even if some individual acts are not discriminatory on their own.
Similar cases
Shift team leader loses constructive dismissal claim after credibility issues
A shift team leader with 9 years' service resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan, but the tribunal dismissed all claims, finding no breach of contract and serious credibility problems with his evidence.
Constructive dismissal claim fails: grievance delay not a breach of trust
A customer assistant with 12 years' service resigned after a delay in his grievance response. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach, and his constructive dismissal claim was dismissed.
Placed at risk of redundancy while on sick leave: disability discrimination claim succeeds
A former employee with PTSD was placed at risk of redundancy while on sick leave. The tribunal found it was discrimination arising from disability and awarded £12,183.
19-year care worker wins constructive dismissal after assaults and ignored redeployment requests
An assistant unit manager with 19 years' service was constructively dismissed after the council failed to address safety concerns, delayed her grievances, and refused to redeploy her despite her disability. The tribunal awarded £35,208.
