Sales executive found disabled after dismissal: employer's knowledge was key
A tribunal ruled that a sales executive was disabled by anxiety and depression from February 2021, but her employer did not know and could not reasonably have known of her disability before dismissing her in January 2021.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #protected-disclosure
- #furlough-fraud
- #anxiety-disorder
- #long-term-effect
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a sales executive from 1 April 2019 until dismissal on 18 January 2021.
- The claimant was absent from work from 28 August 2020 due to work-related stress and anxiety.
- The claimant raised a grievance on 4 June 2020 alleging she was asked to work while on furlough.
- The respondent obtained an Occupational Health report on 6 November 2020 which stated the claimant was unlikely to have a qualifying disability.
- The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the material time because the adverse effect was not long-term.
- The tribunal found the claimant's grievance of 4 June 2020 included a protected disclosure about furlough fraud made in the public interest.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a sales executive with Vistry Homes Ltd.
-
First mention of anxiety
Claimant told Head of Sales Linda Huntington she was struggling with anxiety and not sleeping due to working with a colleague.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance alleging she was asked to work while on furlough, among other complaints.
-
Return from furlough
Claimant returned to work from furlough.
-
Sickness absence began
Claimant started sickness absence due to work-related stress after receiving a disciplinary hearing invitation.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended a disciplinary hearing; outcome was a final written warning.
-
Medication for anxiety
Claimant informed respondent she had been prescribed medication for anxiety.
-
Occupational Health report
Occupational Health report stated claimant was unlikely to have a qualifying disability under the Equality Act.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by reason of misconduct.
-
GP letter
GP letter confirmed claimant was being treated for Anxiety Disorder and Depression.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was disabled at the relevant time, and if so, when the employer knew or should have known of her disability. It also had to determine whether her grievance about furlough fraud was a protected disclosure.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was disabled by anxiety disorder and depression from 19 February 2021, when a GP letter confirmed the condition. However, the substantial adverse effect was not likely to last 12 months until that date, which was after her dismissal on 18 January 2021. The employer did not have actual or constructive knowledge of her disability during employment.
- The claimant's grievance of 4 June 2020 included a protected disclosure about alleged furlough fraud made in the public interest.
- No compensation was awarded as this was a preliminary issue hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Disability status depends on the impairment having a 'long-term' effect, meaning it has lasted or is likely to last at least 12 months.
- Employers are only liable for disability discrimination if they knew or reasonably should have known of the employee's disability at the time of the alleged discriminatory act.
- A grievance alleging furlough fraud can be a protected disclosure if made in the public interest, even if the employer disputes the facts.
- Medical evidence from a GP can be crucial in establishing the date when a condition becomes long-term.
When does a mental health condition become a disability?
This case shows that even when an employee has anxiety and depression, the timing of when the condition meets the legal definition of disability can be critical. The sales executive had told her employer about her anxiety as early as August 2019 and was prescribed medication in September 2020. However, the tribunal found that the substantial adverse effect of her impairment was not likely to last 12 months until 19 February 2021 — the date of a GP letter confirming her diagnosis. By that time, she had already been dismissed.
What could the employer have done differently?
Vistry Homes Ltd obtained an Occupational Health report in November 2020 which stated the claimant was unlikely to have a qualifying disability. The tribunal accepted that the employer relied on this report in good faith. However, the case highlights that employers should keep medical evidence under review, especially if an employee's condition deteriorates or new evidence emerges. If the employer had received the GP letter before dismissing, they might have been fixed with knowledge of her disability.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees bringing disability discrimination claims, the key takeaway is that you must show the employer knew or should have known of your disability at the time of the alleged discrimination. A diagnosis after dismissal may not help if the employer had no reason to know earlier. Conversely, the ruling that the furlough fraud grievance was a protected disclosure is a reminder that whistleblowing protections can apply even when the employer disputes the underlying allegations.
Similar cases
Care worker resigned after 'so bipolar' comment and sudden role change: constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed
A care assessment officer who was told she was 'so bipolar' and had her role changed with less than 24 hours' notice has been allowed to add protected disclosure claims to her constructive dismissal case.
Registered Nurse lost constructive dismissal claim over protected disclosure and discrimination
A tribunal dismissed all claims by a dementia ward nurse who resigned after suspension, finding no link between his protected disclosure and the employer's actions.
Facilities manager dismissed after sham redundancy and disciplinary process
A facilities manager with dyslexia and heart failure was unfairly dismissed after his employer turned a redundancy process into a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found the process was a sham and the real reason was a breakdown in trust and confidence.
Shouting at the boss: dismissal for irretrievable breakdown of trust upheld
A married couple who worked as wedding events and facilities managers were fairly dismissed after a heated meeting where the husband shouted at the company owner. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and whistleblowing detriment.