Cancer diagnosis leads to unfair dismissal: bank failed to extend secondment
A senior risk and compliance professional was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after her employer refused to extend her secondment due to cancer-related absences. The tribunal found the bank's decision was influenced by her disability.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #cancer-diagnosis
- #secondment-extension
- #discriminatory-dismissal
- #section-15-equality-act
- #polkey-reduction
Key facts
- The Claimant was employed from 9 September 2013 until 4 April 2020.
- She was diagnosed with colon cancer in early August 2019.
- Her secondment as Head of OCiR was due to end on 4 March 2020 but was extended by one month to 4 April 2020.
- The Tribunal found that the Respondent decided not to seek a business extension because of her cancer-related absences.
- The Claimant was unfairly dismissed and suffered discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
- The Tribunal applied a 25% Polkey reduction for the chance she would have been fairly dismissed later.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The Claimant began working for National Westminster Bank plc.
-
Redundancy notice
The Claimant was given notice of redundancy from her ICB role, effective 28 February 2019.
-
Secondment to Head of OCiR
The Claimant began a secondment as Head of OCiR, initially for three months, later extended to 12 months.
-
Cancer diagnosis
The Claimant was diagnosed with colon cancer and informed her managers.
-
Discriminatory call
Ms Pragnell and Ms Williams discussed terminating the Claimant's secondment early due to her cancer treatment.
-
Excluded from meeting
The Claimant was told she was not needed at the Monday team meeting, which she felt was humiliating.
-
No year-end review
The Claimant was told she would not have a year-end performance review because she had 'better things to concentrate on'.
-
False assurance
Ms Pragnell told the Claimant she had 'no reason to believe' the secondment would not be extended, but the business had already decided not to seek a business extension.
-
One-month extension
The Claimant was informed her secondment would be extended by only one month, to 4 April 2020.
-
Employment terminated
The Claimant's employment ended. She received an enhanced redundancy payment.
-
Started new contract
The Claimant began a contract role at Credit Suisse, earning £700 per day.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether the bank discriminated against her under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 by refusing to extend her secondment because of her cancer-related absences.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that the bank discriminated against her arising from her disability. The bank had decided not to seek a business extension for her secondment because of her cancer-related absences, which was discriminatory. A 25% Polkey reduction was applied for the chance she would have been fairly dismissed later.
- Unfair dismissal: successful
- Discrimination arising from disability (section 15): successful
- Polkey reduction: 25%
- Remedy to be determined at a later hearing
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must not let disability-related absences influence decisions about temporary role extensions or redeployment opportunities.
- If an employee is disabled, any unfavourable treatment because of something arising from that disability (e.g., absence for treatment) will be discriminatory unless objectively justified.
- A Polkey reduction may apply if there is a chance the employee would have been fairly dismissed anyway, so keep records of all potential fair reasons for dismissal.
- False assurances about role extensions can be used as evidence of discrimination or unfairness.
When a secondment ends because of cancer treatment
This case shows how an employer's response to a cancer diagnosis can cross the line into discrimination. The claimant, a senior risk and compliance professional, had been on a secondment that was due to end. When she was diagnosed with colon cancer, her managers discussed ending the secondment early because of her treatment-related absences. Although they did not act on that discussion, they later refused to extend the secondment beyond a single month, citing business reasons. The tribunal found that the real reason was her disability.
What the bank could have done differently
The bank's decision not to seek a business extension was influenced by the claimant's cancer-related absences. This was a clear case of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act. The bank could have avoided liability by separating the business need for the role from the employee's health needs. If the role was genuinely redundant, a fair process would have considered alternative roles or a proper redundancy consultation, rather than letting the secondment lapse.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employers must not penalise employees for time off related to a disability. Even if a role is temporary, decisions about extensions must be based on objective business criteria, not assumptions about the employee's ability to work due to disability. The tribunal also applied a 25% Polkey reduction, reflecting the chance that the claimant might have been fairly dismissed later anyway. This means that even when discrimination is proven, compensation can be reduced if the employer can show a fair dismissal was likely.
Similar cases
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.
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.
Control room team leader dismissed over hug and anti-Semitism allegations: unfair but compensation slashed
A tribunal found that MTR Elizabeth Line unfairly dismissed a control room team leader of 11 years over a hug and alleged anti-Semitic comments, but reduced compensation by 75% due to his own conduct.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.