Finance officer with 23 years' service dismissed after 32 months' sick leave: claims struck out

When long-term sickness leads to dismissal

This case shows how difficult it can be for an employee to challenge a dismissal that follows a long period of sickness absence, even with 23 years' service and a serious illness like cancer. The tribunal acknowledged the claimant's difficult circumstances but concluded that the employer had acted reasonably in dismissing her after 32 months' absence.

The claimant had been diagnosed with advanced breast cancer in July 2019 and moved to Spain for treatment. She later asked to work remotely from Spain because she was clinically vulnerable to COVID-19. The school refused, saying the finance role required a UK-based presence. After a series of meetings and correspondence, the school dismissed her in April 2022 on grounds of long-term absence.

What the employer did right

The tribunal found that the school had followed a reasonable process: it had considered medical evidence, held meetings with the claimant, and explored alternatives. The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for a 32-month absence. The claimant's request to work from Spain was not a reasonable adjustment because the role involved paper-based processes and the school had legitimate concerns about data security and supervision.

Why the claims failed

The tribunal struck out all claims at a preliminary stage, meaning they were so weak they had no reasonable prospect of success. The comments made by managers – about the claimant's choice to live in Spain and not being interested in her radiotherapy – were not harassment but rather management communications about her absence. The victimisation claim failed because the dismissal was not linked to her earlier tribunal claim.

What this means for similar cases

For employees, this case is a reminder that even long-serving staff can be fairly dismissed for long-term sickness if the employer follows a proper process. For employers, it shows that a robust capability procedure, including consideration of alternatives and medical evidence, can withstand scrutiny. The tribunal's willingness to strike out claims early also highlights the importance of assessing the strength of a case before proceeding to a full hearing.