Heart attack return: driving restriction ignored led to constructive dismissal
An area contract manager who returned to work after a heart attack was constructively dismissed after her employer ignored a 4-hour driving limit and left her 'at risk' for months. The tribunal awarded over £101,000.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #disability-discrimination
- #failure-to-make-reasonable-adjustments
- #heart-condition
- #phased-return
- #at-risk-status
- #injury-to-feelings
Key facts
- The claimant had a heart attack on 25 July 2019 and was off work until 14 November 2019.
- On 19 September 2019 the respondent sent the claimant an 'at risk' letter regarding a restructure.
- The claimant returned to work on 14 November 2019 with a phased return limiting driving to 4 hours per day.
- The respondent did not implement the driving restriction and increased the claimant's workload.
- The claimant resigned on 21 February 2020 due to the respondent's failure to resolve her at-risk status and lack of support for her health.
- The tribunal found the respondent discriminated against the claimant arising from her disability and failed to make reasonable adjustments.
Timeline
-
Heart attack at work
The claimant suffered a heart attack while at work, later diagnosed on 31 July.
-
Welfare visit and equipment collected
Liam Coton visited the claimant, collected her car, laptop, iPad, and phone, and told her she would return to her own area.
-
At-risk letter sent
The respondent sent the claimant a letter stating her position was at risk of redundancy due to a restructure.
-
Grievance submitted
The claimant submitted a grievance about the removal of her car, the at-risk letter, and sick pay.
-
GP advises return with driving limit
The claimant's GP said she could return to work from 14 November but should limit driving to 4 hours a day.
-
Return to work
The claimant returned to work on a phased return with a 4-hour driving limit, but was assigned a new area with longer distances.
-
Concern about additional contracts
The claimant emailed about being allocated extra contracts, and the respondent withdrew two contracts.
-
Cardiologist advises defibrillator operation
The claimant was advised she needed a defibrillator implant, which could affect her ability to drive.
-
Phone call with Maya Mikuc
Ms Mikuc commented on the claimant's driving restrictions; the claimant raised using public transport but was told it was not allowed.
-
Resignation
The claimant resigned by email, citing unresolved at-risk status and failure to take her illness seriously.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's actions — including ignoring a medical driving restriction, failing to resolve a redundancy 'at risk' status, and not making reasonable adjustments — amounted to constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claims of constructive unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The employer was found to have breached the implied term of trust and confidence by not implementing the 4-hour driving limit and by leaving the claimant in limbo over her 'at risk' status for months after she returned to work.
The compensation award totalled £101,028.67, broken down as follows:
- Basic award: £1,560.60
- Compensatory award: £99,468.07 (including £25,000 for injury to feelings)
- No reduction for Polkey or contributory fault was applied.
Lessons & takeaways
- If your employer ignores a medical restriction agreed before your return, that can be a fundamental breach of contract entitling you to resign and claim constructive dismissal.
- Leaving an employee 'at risk' of redundancy for an indefinite period after they return from sick leave can destroy trust and confidence.
- Failing to make reasonable adjustments — such as a driving limit — is not only a breach of contract but also disability discrimination.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible but complex; the claimant here succeeded in person, but legal advice is strongly recommended.
- Compensation for injury to feelings can be substantial (here £25,000) when the employer's conduct causes significant distress.
A return to work that went wrong
This case shows what can happen when an employer fails to honour agreed adjustments after a serious illness. The claimant suffered a heart attack at work in July 2019. After time off, her GP cleared her to return in November 2019 but with a clear restriction: she could only drive for four hours a day, not the usual eight. The employer agreed to this — but then did not implement it. Instead, the claimant was given a new area with longer distances and extra contracts, making the driving limit impossible to follow.
At the same time, the employer had sent her an 'at risk' letter in September 2019 about a restructure. When she returned to work, that status was never resolved. She was left in limbo for months, unsure whether she had a job. She raised a grievance, but it was not upheld. Eventually, in February 2020, she resigned.
What the employer could have done differently
The tribunal found that the employer had no reasonable or proper cause for its actions. It could have implemented the driving restriction simply by adjusting her workload or providing support. It could have resolved the 'at risk' status promptly. Instead, it did nothing, leaving the claimant feeling pushed out and unsupported. The comment made by a manager in February 2020 — that the driving restriction was 'not good for business' — only added to the breakdown in trust.
Why this matters
For employees returning from serious illness, this case is a reminder that agreed adjustments must be honoured. For employers, it shows that ignoring medical restrictions and leaving someone in redundancy limbo can amount to both constructive dismissal and disability discrimination. The £101,000 award — including £25,000 for injury to feelings — reflects the serious impact on the claimant's health and finances. The tribunal also made clear that the employer's conduct was not justified by any legitimate aim.
Similar cases
Council failed to adjust duties for loader with depression: constructive dismissal and discrimination
A driver/loader with depression was constructively dismissed after Dacorum Borough Council refused to let him work as a loader and later changed his terms. The tribunal awarded £24,324.43.
Nursery worker with disability unfairly dismissed and discriminated against
A nursery worker was unfairly dismissed and subjected to disability discrimination by Monkton Under 5 Playgroup. The tribunal awarded £27,676 in compensation, including £16,200 for injury to feelings.
Estate agent with Crohn's disease wins constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claim
An estate agent with Crohn's disease was constructively dismissed and discriminated against after her employer sidelined her due to her disability. The tribunal awarded £46,652.74.
Phased return not implemented: employer's failure to follow occupational health advice was disability discrimination
A former employee with a disability succeeded in a reasonable adjustments claim after Ocado failed to implement a phased return to work recommended by occupational health. The tribunal awarded £8,271.35, including £5,000 for injury to feelings.