Disability-related absences led to unfair redundancy selection: £26,000 awarded
A digital marketing manager with Crohn's and Behcet's disease was unfairly selected for redundancy after his disability-related absences played a role in the decision. The tribunal awarded £26,132.24.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #redundancy-selection
- #sickness-absences
- #burden-of-proof
- #chagger-argument
- #acas-code-not-applicable
Key facts
- The Claimant was employed as a Digital Marketing Manager from 22 July 2019 until his dismissal on 17 March 2020.
- The Claimant has Crohn's disease and Behcet's disease, which the Respondent accepted as disabilities.
- The Claimant had three periods of sickness absence between February and March 2020, two of which were linked to his disability.
- The Respondent made the Claimant redundant on 17 March 2020, citing financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The Tribunal found that the Claimant's disability-related absences played more than a trivial role in his selection for redundancy.
- The Tribunal limited the Claimant's loss of earnings to 31 July 2020, applying the Chagger principle.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The Claimant began working as a Digital Marketing Manager for the Respondent.
-
Six-week probation meeting
The Claimant received positive feedback at his six-week probation review.
-
12-week probation meeting
The Claimant received positive feedback at his 12-week probation review.
-
First sickness absence
The Claimant was absent from 3 to 7 February 2020 with flu-like symptoms, not linked to disability.
-
Second sickness absence
The Claimant was absent from 24 February to 4 March 2020 with acute abdominal issues, linked to disability.
-
Third sickness absence
The Claimant was absent from 9 to 13 March 2020 with stomach pain, linked to disability.
-
Cost reduction plan implemented
The Respondent implemented a cost reduction plan due to financial difficulties.
-
Dismissal
The Claimant was dismissed on grounds of redundancy. Four other staff were also made redundant.
-
Further redundancies
Eighteen more employees were made redundant, including the other team member, Remi Gutteridge.
-
Liability hearing
The Tribunal heard evidence on liability over two days.
-
Liability judgment
The Tribunal found discrimination in redundancy selection.
-
Remedy hearing
The Tribunal awarded £26,132.24 in compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's redundancy dismissal was an act of discrimination arising from his disability, specifically whether his disability-related sickness absences influenced his selection for redundancy.
The outcome
The tribunal found that Criterion Hospitality Limited discriminated against the claimant by selecting him for redundancy. The decision was based on the claimant's disability-related absences playing more than a trivial role in the selection process.
Compensation breakdown:
- Compensatory award: £12,693.55
- Total damages: £26,132.24 (includes other heads of loss not specified)
Lessons & takeaways
- Keep a record of all sickness absences and whether they are linked to a disability, as this can be crucial evidence in a discrimination claim.
- Employers should ensure that redundancy selection criteria do not indirectly penalise disability-related absences.
- Even with genuine financial difficulties, redundancy processes must be fair and not influenced by protected characteristics like disability.
- The Chagger principle may limit compensation if the employee would have been dismissed later for a non-discriminatory reason.
When redundancy selection goes wrong
This case shows how a genuine redundancy situation can still lead to a discrimination finding if disability-related absences are taken into account. The claimant, a digital marketing manager with Crohn's disease and Behcet's disease, had three sickness absences in early 2020, two of which were linked to his disabilities. Shortly after, he was made redundant as part of a cost-cutting exercise due to COVID-19.
The tribunal found that the employer's decision to select the claimant was influenced by his absences, even though the employer argued it was based on skill set overlap. The absences played 'more than a trivial role' in the decision, which was enough to establish discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
What the employer could have done differently
Criterion Hospitality Limited could have avoided this outcome by ensuring that redundancy selection criteria were objective and did not penalise disability-related absences. They should have considered whether the absences were disability-related and, if so, made reasonable adjustments to the selection process. A fair consultation process that addressed the claimant's health issues might also have helped.
Why this matters
This case highlights that even in a genuine redundancy situation, employers must be careful not to let disability-related absences influence selection decisions. For employees, it shows that keeping clear records of absences and their links to disability can be vital. The award of over £26,000 reflects the financial impact of such discrimination, though it was limited by the Chagger principle because the claimant would likely have been made redundant a few months later anyway.
Similar cases
Dismissed during long-term sickness: disability discrimination and unfair dismissal at Jaguar Land Rover
A production operative with six years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to disability-related sickness absence. The tribunal awarded £147,572.75 in compensation.
Faculty manager with 23 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy selection tainted by disability bias
A tribunal found that Canterbury Christ Church University unfairly dismissed a faculty manager and discriminated against her because of her disability when it decided she was not appointable to a new role due to her ill health. She was awarded £32,684.
Redundancy selection after cancer: employer concealed vacancy and lost discrimination claim
A process supervisor with six years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against when Goodfish Limited selected him for redundancy while hiding a vacant maintenance manager role. The tribunal awarded £62,438.
33-year rail operative unfairly dismissed after redundancy scoring ignored disability-related role change
A rail operative with 33 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against when a redundancy skills matrix penalised him for skills that had lapsed due to a disability-related move. Tribunal awards £100,250.