Constructive dismissal after account reallocation and performance plan: a flawed process
A Services Account Manager with four years' service was constructively and unfairly dismissed after SAP placed her on a performance improvement plan and reallocated her largest accounts without proper process. The tribunal dismissed her discrimination claims.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #performance-improvement-plan
- #account-reallocation
- #grievance-investigation
- #age-discrimination
- #race-discrimination
- #sex-discrimination
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Services Account Manager from 18 July 2016 until she resigned on 21 July 2020.
- In April 2020, the claimant was placed on a performance improvement plan without prior warning or discussion.
- Her two largest accounts (A and B) were reallocated to other employees, reducing her pipeline from £27.6 million to £1.1 million.
- The claimant's grievance and appeal were dismissed after inadequate investigations.
- The tribunal found the claimant was constructively and unfairly dismissed.
- The tribunal dismissed all claims of discrimination, harassment, and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with SAP (UK) Limited as a Services Account Manager.
-
New manager appointed
Jon Stubbington became Services Sales Manager with management responsibility for the claimant.
-
First performance improvement plan
Claimant was placed on a PIP due to performance concerns; she successfully completed it by July 2019.
-
Bruce Pell became interim line manager
Bruce Pell replaced Jon Stubbington as the claimant's line manager on an interim basis.
-
Jade Horsman became UKI Director of Sales
Jade Horsman replaced Raynata Rana as UKI Director of Sales.
-
Meeting with Bruce Pell
At a meeting, Bruce Pell made a comment using an expletive about the deal sponsor; the tribunal found this occurred but was not intended to be offensive.
-
Meeting about Account B
Bruce Pell repeatedly asked the claimant who would write the submission document; the tribunal found this aggressive and hostile.
-
Informed of second PIP and account reallocation
Claimant was told she would be placed on a PIP and that Accounts A and B would be moved to other employees.
-
PIP details discussed
Claimant met with Jade Horsman; Accounts A and B were reallocated to white men aged 39 and 25, replaced with four accounts the claimant considered 'dead'.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant submitted a grievance alleging unfair treatment and discrimination.
-
Grievance hearing
Grievance hearing with Caroline Scott; the tribunal later found the investigation inadequate.
-
Grievance outcome
Caroline Scott dismissed the grievance.
-
Grievance appeal hearing
Appeal hearing with Iain Sibley; the tribunal found the appeal was not properly considered.
-
Grievance appeal outcome
Appeal rejected.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned without notice, claiming constructive dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's actions—placing the claimant on a performance improvement plan, reallocating her accounts, and handling her grievance inadequately—amounted to a fundamental breach of contract that entitled her to resign and claim constructive dismissal. It also considered claims of age, race, and sex discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, finding that the employer's conduct, including the reallocation of her two largest accounts and the imposition of a performance improvement plan without prior warning, destroyed the mutual trust and confidence required in the employment relationship.
However, the tribunal dismissed all claims of direct discrimination, harassment, and victimisation on grounds of age, race, and sex, concluding that the claimant's treatment was not because of a protected characteristic.
A remedy hearing is scheduled to determine compensation.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are placed on a performance improvement plan without prior discussion or warning, this may be a sign that the employer is not following a fair process.
- Reallocating an employee's key accounts without a clear business reason can undermine their ability to perform and may be seen as a breach of trust.
- Employers should handle grievances thoroughly and impartially; a superficial investigation can strengthen a constructive dismissal claim.
- Proving discrimination requires evidence that the treatment was because of a protected characteristic—unfair treatment alone is not enough.
This case shows how a series of management decisions, each perhaps defensible in isolation, can together amount to a fundamental breach of the employment contract. The claimant, a Services Account Manager with four years' service, had her two largest accounts reallocated to other employees without prior discussion. At the same time, she was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) that she had not been warned about. The tribunal found that these actions, combined with an aggressive meeting and a grievance process that was not properly investigated, destroyed the trust and confidence needed for the employment relationship to continue.
What could have been done differently
The employer could have avoided the finding of constructive dismissal by following a fairer process. Before reallocating accounts, SAP could have discussed the reasons with the claimant and given her an opportunity to respond. The PIP could have been introduced with clear objectives and support, rather than as a surprise. The grievance investigation should have been more thorough, with proper consideration of the claimant's concerns about discrimination. Instead, the tribunal found that the investigation was inadequate and the appeal was not properly considered.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that constructive dismissal claims can succeed when an employer's conduct, taken as a whole, amounts to a repudiatory breach. However, the dismissal of the discrimination claims highlights the difficulty of proving that treatment was because of age, race, or sex. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was treated unfairly, but found no evidence that this was linked to her protected characteristics. For employers, the lesson is clear: even if discrimination is not proven, a flawed process can still lead to a finding of unfair dismissal and potential compensation.
Similar cases
Finance Director with 24 years' service wins constructive dismissal and discrimination claim
A tribunal found that a finance director with 24 years' service was constructively dismissed and subjected to sex and race discrimination after being passed over for managing director and told her chairman had lost confidence in her. She was awarded £112,007.
Constructive dismissal claim thrown out for being 5 days late
A former employee's constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were dismissed because they were presented 5 days late, with no medical evidence covering the relevant period.
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.
Staff nurse's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing fails
A tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by a Band 5 staff nurse against Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, including constructive dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and discrimination on grounds of race, age, and religion.