Constructive dismissal claim survives strike-out bid despite disability finding

What this case shows in practice

This case illustrates the hurdles claimants face when bringing multiple discrimination claims alongside a constructive dismissal. The former employee, who had worked for Equans Services Limited for seven years, alleged he was forced to resign after his employer failed to address his grievances about age discrimination and disability-related issues. While the tribunal allowed his unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims to proceed, it struck a blow to his disability claims by finding he was not a disabled person under the Equality Act — a key legal threshold.

The claimant had been off sick for over a year from March 2019 to July 2020, and returned on a phased basis. He resigned in September 2021, claiming the respondent's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. The respondent applied to strike out all claims or obtain a deposit order, arguing they had no reasonable prospects. The tribunal disagreed on the unfair dismissal and age claims, but the disability claims later failed at a separate hearing.

What the losing side could have done differently

For the respondent, the strike-out application was largely unsuccessful — the tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim had reasonable prospects, and the age discrimination claim was allowed to proceed after an extension of time. However, the respondent succeeded in defeating the disability claims by arguing that the claimant's condition did not meet the statutory definition of disability. This highlights the importance of obtaining medical evidence early to challenge disability status.

For the claimant, the outcome is a mixed bag. While his unfair dismissal and age claims survive, the dismissal of the disability claims means he cannot pursue reasonable adjustments or disability-related discrimination. The tribunal's finding that he was not disabled suggests that his medical evidence may have been insufficient to show a long-term, substantial adverse effect. Claimants should ensure they have comprehensive medical reports that address the specific legal test for disability.

Why the result matters for similar claims

This case demonstrates that constructive dismissal claims are not easily struck out, even when the employer argues they are weak. The tribunal was willing to let the claim proceed to a full hearing, recognising that the question of fundamental breach is often fact-sensitive. It also shows that age discrimination claims can be brought out of time if there is a good reason — here, the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis, possibly because the alleged discrimination was part of a continuing course of conduct.

However, the disability discrimination outcome is a reminder that not every health condition qualifies as a disability. Claimants should seek early legal advice on whether their condition meets the Equality Act definition, and gather supporting medical evidence. The case also underscores that having a lay representative can be effective, but professional representation may strengthen prospects on complex issues like disability status.