Finance manager dismissed after taking carers' leave: disability discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal
A finance manager with 13 years' service was dismissed after taking leave to care for her husband with heart failure. The tribunal found disability discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal, awarding £114,421.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-related-harassment
- #direct-disability-discrimination
- #automatic-unfair-dismissal
- #wrongful-dismissal
- #acas-code-uplift
- #aggravated-damages
Key facts
- Mrs Wolloms was employed by CI Accountancy Limited from 26 September 2005 until her dismissal on 18 April 2019.
- She took leave under section 57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 between November 2018 and 7 January 2019 to care for her husband, who had heart failure.
- On 7 January 2019, Mr Killmister and Mr Hare told Mrs Wolloms she could no longer do client work because they assumed she would need future time off to care for her husband.
- Disciplinary proceedings were commenced against Mrs Wolloms on 6 March 2019, and she was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct on 18 April 2019.
- An independent appeal upheld Mrs Wolloms' appeal and recommended reinstatement, but the respondents refused.
- The tribunal found that the disciplinary proceedings and dismissal were acts of disability-related harassment and direct disability discrimination.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mrs Wolloms began working for CI Accountancy Limited as finance manager and internal finance manager.
-
Husband diagnosed with heart failure
Mrs Wolloms' husband was diagnosed with heart failure, leading her to take authorised leave, including under section 57A ERA.
-
Meeting about return to work
Mrs Wolloms met with Mr Killmister and Mr Hare, who told her she could no longer do client work due to assumptions about future absences to care for her husband.
-
Allegations sent to claimant
The respondents sent Mrs Wolloms a list of 11 allegations of misconduct, initiating a disciplinary process.
-
Protected act letter
Mrs Wolloms' legal advisor sent a letter alleging disability discrimination by association, which was a protected act.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Mrs Wolloms was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 19 March 2019, later postponed to 5 April 2019.
-
Dismissal
Mrs Wolloms was dismissed without notice for alleged gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
An independent appeal hearing was held, and the appeal officer recommended reinstatement, but the respondents refused.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found that the disciplinary proceedings and dismissal were unlawful discrimination and unfair dismissal.
-
Remedy judgment
The tribunal awarded total compensation of £114,421.27, including injury to feelings, financial loss, and an ACAS uplift.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer discriminated against the finance manager by association with a disabled person (her husband) when it started disciplinary proceedings and dismissed her, and whether the dismissal was automatically unfair because she had recently taken statutory leave to care for a dependant.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the finance manager's claims of disability-related harassment, direct disability discrimination, and automatic unfair dismissal. It found that the employer's actions were motivated by assumptions about her future caring responsibilities, which amounted to discrimination by association.
Compensation totalled £114,421.27, including:
- Basic award: £10,237.50
- Injury to feelings: £25,000
- Financial losses: £66,183.77
- ACAS uplift (25%): £12,000 (for unreasonable failure to comply with ACAS Code)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees who take time off to care for a dependant are protected from detriment and automatic unfair dismissal under section 57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- Disability discrimination by association applies when an employer treats an employee unfavourably because of their connection to a disabled person.
- Employers should not make assumptions about future absences based on an employee's caring responsibilities; each case must be assessed on current facts.
- An independent appeal recommendation to reinstate should be followed unless there are compelling reasons not to; ignoring it can strengthen a discrimination claim.
- Failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures can result in an uplift of up to 25% on compensation.
A case about assumptions and consequences
This case shows how an employer's assumptions about an employee's future caring responsibilities can lead to costly discrimination findings. The finance manager had worked for CI Accountancy Limited for 13 years when her husband was diagnosed with heart failure. She took authorised leave under section 57A of the Employment Rights Act to care for him. Upon her return, managers told her she could no longer do client work because they assumed she would need more time off in the future.
What followed was a disciplinary process that the tribunal found was a sham. The employer pursued 11 allegations of misconduct, dismissed her for gross misconduct, and then refused to reinstate her even after an independent appeal officer recommended it. The tribunal concluded that the real reason for the dismissal was her association with a disabled person — her husband — and her recent exercise of statutory caring leave.
What the employer could have done differently
CI Accountancy Limited could have avoided this outcome by treating the finance manager fairly. Instead of jumping to conclusions about her future attendance, they could have discussed her caring responsibilities openly and made reasonable adjustments. The disciplinary process should have been genuine, not a pretext. And when the independent appeal found the dismissal was wrong, the employer should have reinstated her — refusing to do so only compounded the discrimination.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a strong reminder that discrimination by association is a real and enforceable right. Employees who care for disabled relatives are protected from unfavourable treatment. It also highlights the importance of the ACAS Code of Practice — the tribunal applied a 25% uplift because the employer unreasonably failed to follow it. For anyone in a similar situation, the key takeaway is that the law protects you from being penalised for your caring responsibilities, and tribunals will look closely at the employer's true motives.
Similar cases
Whistleblower dismissed in flawed redundancy process: ACAS uplift adds 25% to compensation
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure about health and safety. The tribunal awarded over £50,000, including a 25% uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS Code of Conduct.
Cleaner dismissed on TUPE transfer day: automatic unfair dismissal
A cleaner with 12 years' service was dismissed on the day her employment transferred to a new company. The tribunal found the dismissal automatically unfair and awarded £3,025.24, including an uplift for ignoring her grievance.
Dismissed on the day of a TUPE transfer: automatic unfair dismissal and age discrimination
A production manager with 13 years' service was dismissed without notice on the day his employment transferred to a new company. The tribunal found automatic unfair dismissal and direct age discrimination, awarding over £130,000.
Pregnant hairdresser dismissed after self-isolating: automatic unfair dismissal
A hairdresser who was dismissed after self-isolating following contact with a COVID-positive client has won her claim for automatic unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination. The Bristol tribunal awarded £59,632.94.