Clinical Support Worker with rheumatoid arthritis fairly dismissed after redeployment exhausted
An NHS trust fairly dismissed a clinical support worker with rheumatoid arthritis and sickle cell anaemia after a 12-month absence, the tribunal ruled. The trust had explored redeployment and followed its procedures.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #rheumatoid-arthritis
- #covid-19-vulnerability
- #redeployment
- #occupational-health
- #pma-training
- #costs-awarded
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Clinical Support Worker from 21 March 2016 until 6 September 2021.
- She had rheumatoid arthritis and sickle cell anaemia, making her vulnerable to Covid-19.
- She was unable to return to her substantive ward role due to physical limitations and Covid-19 risk.
- The respondent explored redeployment and provided support, but no suitable alternative role was found.
- The claimant was dismissed on grounds of ill health capability after nearly 12 months of absence from her substantive role.
- The tribunal found the dismissal fair and not discriminatory.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Clinical Support Worker at Walker Close.
-
Absence due to rheumatoid arthritis crisis
Claimant began a 19-day absence due to a rheumatoid arthritis crisis.
-
Return to work meeting
Respondent held a return to work meeting; claimant had exceeded absence thresholds.
-
Non-clinical return to work
Claimant started working from home in a non-clinical role to avoid physical duties.
-
Occupational Health report
First Occupational Health report received.
-
Wellbeing discussion
Meeting to discuss implications of claimant's conditions and redeployment options.
-
Occupational Health review
Report stated claimant's symptoms incompatible with return to substantive role in next six months.
-
Formal Attendance Management Meeting
Meeting where it was decided to move to an Attendance Hearing.
-
Attendance Hearing (adjourned)
Meeting adjourned for four weeks to allow claimant to seek redeployment.
-
Attendance Hearing (reconvened)
Claimant confirmed no alternative role found; respondent decided to dismiss on ill health capability grounds.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's employment terminated after notice period.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for ill-health capability was fair under the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether it amounted to discrimination arising from disability or a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, ruling that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and that there was no discrimination or failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The key reasons were:
- The trust had a potentially fair reason for dismissal: capability (ill health).
- The trust followed a reasonable process: it obtained occupational health advice, held meetings, explored redeployment, and gave the claimant time to find alternative roles.
- The trust did not discriminate: the dismissal was not because of the claimant's disability but because she could not perform her role, and the trust had made reasonable adjustments by offering non-clinical work and considering redeployment.
No compensation was awarded; in fact, the claimant was ordered to pay the trust's costs of £10,491.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for ill-health capability if they follow a proper process, including obtaining medical evidence and exploring redeployment.
- Long-term absence does not automatically make a dismissal unfair; the key is whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances.
- Disability discrimination claims may fail if the employer shows it considered reasonable adjustments and the dismissal was for a non-discriminatory reason.
- If a claimant refuses to engage with the employer's process or fails to provide updated medical evidence, this can weaken their case.
- Costs can be awarded against a claimant if the tribunal finds the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
A thorough process that passed the fairness test
This case shows that even a sympathetic claimant with serious health conditions can lose an unfair dismissal claim if the employer follows a robust procedure. The clinical support worker had rheumatoid arthritis and sickle cell anaemia, making her vulnerable to Covid-19. She was unable to return to her ward role, which involved physical duties and patient contact. The NHS trust took her health seriously: it obtained occupational health reports, held wellbeing meetings, and placed her on the redeployment register. When no suitable alternative role emerged after nearly 12 months, the trust decided to dismiss on capability grounds.
The tribunal noted that the trust had a potentially fair reason for dismissal and acted within the 'range of reasonable responses'. It had considered adjustments—such as home-based non-clinical work—and had given the claimant time to find another role. The claimant argued that the trust should have waited longer or created a bespoke role, but the tribunal disagreed. The trust's decision was based on medical advice that the claimant could not return to her substantive role in the foreseeable future.
What the trust did right
The trust's approach offers a blueprint for employers handling long-term sickness: commission timely occupational health reports, document meetings, explore redeployment formally, and communicate decisions clearly. Crucially, the trust did not dismiss the claimant while she was still in the redeployment process; it adjourned the attendance hearing to allow her more time. When no role materialised, dismissal followed. The tribunal also rejected the discrimination claims, finding that the trust had made reasonable adjustments and that the dismissal was not because of the disability but because of the claimant's inability to perform the role.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that a fair process can defeat a claim even when the underlying health condition is severe. For employers, it confirms that a structured ill-health capability procedure—with proper medical evidence and genuine redeployment efforts—can withstand scrutiny. The award of costs against the claimant also highlights the risk of pursuing claims that the tribunal considers to have little prospect of success.
Similar cases
Customer service assistant dismissed on medical grounds without recommended risk assessment
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a London Underground customer service assistant with 13 years' service, finding that the employer acted reasonably despite not carrying out a recommended risk assessment before termination.
Dismissed after 12 years due to long-term sickness: employer's redeployment efforts upheld
A Food Technology Technician with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for capability after a long-term sickness absence, the tribunal ruled, finding the employer had properly considered redeployment and made reasonable adjustments.
NHS healthcare assistant dismissed after 20-month sick leave: disability discrimination claim fails
A healthcare assistant with 7 years' service was dismissed after 20 months' sick leave due to a work-related arm and neck injury. The tribunal found the NHS trust's decision was proportionate, balancing patient safety and staffing needs.
Dismissed after refusing redeployment: a capability decision that passed the fairness test
A Housing Solutions Assistant with PTSD was fairly dismissed after a lengthy sickness absence when he refused all redeployment options, the tribunal has ruled.