Cancer survivor unfairly dismissed after being forced to compete for her own job in restructure
A lead early years consultant with six years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after Lancashire County Council required her to compete for a role substantially similar to her own while she was on long-term sick leave for cancer treatment. The tribunal awarded over £800,000 in compensation.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #cancer-treatment
- #long-term-sickness
- #competitive-interview
- #restructure
- #unfair-dismissal
- #reasonable-adjustments
Key facts
- The claimant was diagnosed with cancer in November 2014 and had long absences for treatment.
- In 2018, the respondent restructured the early years team and required the claimant to compete for a role substantially similar to her own.
- The claimant was not appointed to the Early Years Quality Improvement Lead role and was instead offered a more junior Senior Early Years Consultant role.
- The claimant refused the offered role and was dismissed in April 2021.
- The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to disability.
Timeline
-
Cancer diagnosis
The claimant was diagnosed with cancer, leading to long periods of sickness absence.
-
Long-term sickness absence begins
The claimant was absent from work for the whole of 2015 undergoing operations and chemotherapy.
-
Return to work after first cancer treatment
The claimant returned to work in May 2016 after a phased return plan.
-
Second long-term sickness absence begins
The claimant began a second long period of sickness absence due to cancer recurrence.
-
Restructure ringfence widened
The respondent changed the ringfence for the Early Years Quality Improvement Lead role from the claimant only to include Annette Shepherd, following intervention by colleagues.
-
Competitive interview
The claimant attended a competitive interview for the QI Lead role but was unsuccessful; Annette Shepherd was appointed.
-
Offer of Senior Early Years Consultant role
The claimant was offered the more junior Senior Early Years Consultant role, which she considered a demotion.
-
Redeployment appeal lodged
The claimant appealed the restructure outcome, raising discrimination complaints.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed after refusing to accept the offered role.
-
Liability hearing begins
The employment tribunal heard the case over multiple days in August and December 2021.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether the respondent discriminated against her due to disability by requiring a competitive interview process and failing to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
- The council required the claimant to apply and be interviewed for a role substantially the same as her own, which amounted to discrimination arising from disability (section 15 Equality Act 2010).
- The council indirectly discriminated against her by applying a competitive interview process that disadvantaged disabled employees, and failed to make reasonable adjustments.
- The claimant was awarded a total of £800,713.59, including a basic award of £14,688. The compensatory award was not separately itemised but included substantial losses given her length of service and the discrimination findings.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers restructuring while an employee is on long-term sick leave should consider whether a competitive interview process puts that employee at a disadvantage and whether reasonable adjustments are needed.
- A long-serving employee with a disability should not be required to compete for a role they already perform, especially if their absence is disability-related.
- Failing to make reasonable adjustments during a restructure can lead to significant compensation, including for injury to feelings and future loss of earnings.
- Discrimination arising from disability can occur even if the employer did not intend to discriminate, if the treatment is because of something arising from the disability.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the risks employers face when restructuring teams that include employees on long-term sick leave, particularly where the absence is linked to a disability. The claimant, a lead senior early years consultant with six years' service, had been diagnosed with cancer in 2014 and had two lengthy periods of absence for treatment. When Lancashire County Council restructured its early years team in 2018, it required her to compete for a role that was substantially the same as the one she had held since 2012.
The tribunal found that this competitive interview process was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from her disability — her long absence and cancer treatment. The council also indirectly discriminated against her by applying a provision, criterion or practice (requiring a competitive interview where there was more than one suitable candidate) that put disabled employees at a substantial disadvantage, and failed to make reasonable adjustments to avoid that disadvantage.
What the losing side could have done differently
The council could have avoided liability by recognising that the claimant's absence was disability-related and adjusting the process accordingly. Instead of requiring her to compete, it could have ringfenced her role or offered her the post without interview, given her experience and the fact that the role was essentially the same. The tribunal noted that the council widened the ringfence to include another colleague, which directly disadvantaged the claimant. A reasonable adjustment might have been to appoint her without competition, or to provide additional support during the interview process.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that restructures are not a 'free pass' for employers to disregard equality law. Employees with disabilities who are on long-term sick leave retain protection against discrimination and unfair dismissal. The substantial award — over £800,000 — reflects not only the financial losses from dismissal but also the seriousness of the discrimination. For employees in similar situations, it underscores the importance of raising discrimination concerns early and seeking legal advice. For employers, it demonstrates that failing to consider reasonable adjustments during a restructure can be costly, both financially and reputationally.
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.
NHS trust failed to redeploy disabled nursing assistant without competitive interviews
A senior nursing assistant was unfairly dismissed after her employer required her to compete for sedentary roles despite medical advice. The tribunal awarded £21,173.