£1.77m award for director with cancer failed by redundancy process
A director with 12 years' service who had renal cancer was unfairly dismissed and denied reasonable adjustments during a redundancy alignment exercise. The tribunal awarded over £1.76 million.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #disability-discrimination
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #alignment-exercise
- #private-medical-insurance
- #permanent-health-insurance
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 28 June 2004 until dismissal for redundancy on 31 December 2017.
- The claimant was disabled due to renal cancer from 2005, known to the respondent.
- The respondent conducted an alignment exercise without written policy or objective criteria.
- The claimant was initially aligned to the SAN business unit but moved to IP General in February 2017.
- The claimant lost private medical insurance on dismissal, which he could not replace affordably.
- The tribunal found failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfair dismissal, but dismissed direct and indirect discrimination claims.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant joined Brocade Communications UK Ltd as OEM Territory Sales Representative.
-
Cancer diagnosis
Claimant diagnosed with renal cancer, a disability under the Equality Act.
-
Promotion to Director – EMEA Operations
Claimant promoted to role effectively chief of staff to Vice President EMEA.
-
Acquisition announced
Broadcom announced proposed acquisition of Brocade; alignment process began.
-
Initially aligned to SAN
Claimant placed on SAN business unit retention list.
-
Removed from SAN
Decision to move claimant to IP General business unit due to no sales enablement role needed.
-
Acquisition completed
Broadcom acquisition completed; claimant in IP General at risk of redundancy.
-
Redundancy warning letter
Claimant received letter warning he was at risk of redundancy.
-
Individual consultation meeting
Only individual consultation; no notes taken; focus on settlement agreement.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for redundancy with pay in lieu of notice.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mark Simons; not upheld on 18 March 2018.
-
Claimant died
Claimant passed away at age 63.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for the director's disability during the redundancy process, and whether the dismissal was unfair.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the director's claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfair dismissal, but dismissed claims of direct and indirect discrimination.
Key reasons:
- The alignment exercise lacked objective criteria and was inconsistent.
- Only one individual consultation meeting was held, with no notes taken.
- No suitable alternative employment was offered or created.
Compensation:
- Total award: £1,768,369.22
- No breakdown provided in the structured facts.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must use objective selection criteria in redundancy exercises, especially when the employee has a disability.
- Adequate consultation means more than one meeting; notes should be taken and genuine consideration given.
- Failing to offer suitable alternative employment or modify a role can be a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
- Long-serving employees with disabilities are entitled to additional protections during redundancy.
A redundancy process that failed a long-serving director
This case shows how a redundancy exercise can go wrong when an employer overlooks its duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee. The director had worked for Brocade Communications UK Ltd for 12 years and had renal cancer, a disability known to the employer. When the company was acquired by Broadcom, a so-called 'alignment exercise' was carried out without any written policy or objective criteria. The director was initially placed in one business unit, then moved to another, and ultimately dismissed.
What the employer could have done differently
The tribunal identified three specific failures: the alignment decision was not based on objective criteria; there was only one individual consultation meeting, with no notes taken; and no suitable alternative employment was offered or created. A reasonable adjustment would have been to apply a proper redundancy policy, consult properly, and consider modifying the director's role or offering a new one. The employer's focus on settlement agreements rather than genuine consultation was a critical error.
Why this result matters
The award of over £1.76 million reflects the serious consequences of failing to make reasonable adjustments in a redundancy context. For employees with disabilities, the duty to make reasonable adjustments applies throughout the redundancy process. This case is a reminder that employers cannot rely on informal or opaque selection methods when the employee's disability is known. The director died shortly after the judgment, underscoring the human cost of such failures.
Similar cases
20-year manager dismissed for capability after employer refused to adjust role for disability
A Global Governance Risk and Compliance Manager with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after GlaxoSmithKline failed to make reasonable adjustments for her hand disability. The tribunal awarded £24,785 for injury to feelings.
Redundancy dismissal upheld as fair despite disability, race and sex discrimination claims
An Executive Development Consultant with multiple sclerosis lost her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after the tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and fairly handled.
Nurse's constructive dismissal claim struck out after NHS restructure
A former Grade 7 nurse failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal after his role was removed in a restructure. The tribunal struck out his claim and refused to add a disability discrimination claim.
Translator with MS won reasonable adjustments claim but lost redundancy challenge
An English to German translator with multiple sclerosis won her claim that her employer failed to make reasonable adjustments during redundancy consultation, but the tribunal upheld the redundancy dismissal as fair.