Dismissed after refusing redeployment: a capability decision that passed the fairness test
A Housing Solutions Assistant with PTSD was fairly dismissed after a lengthy sickness absence when he refused all redeployment options, the tribunal has ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 13 June 2016 to 19 January 2020 as a Housing Solutions Assistant, later Independent Living Prevention and Local Welfare Provision Officer.
- He was absent from work due to sickness from 16 July 2018, diagnosed with PTSD, depression and anxiety.
- He returned to work on a phased return from 1 November 2019 but was unwilling to return to his substantive role or accept redeployment opportunities.
- The respondent dismissed him on 19 January 2020 after a lengthy sickness absence and failure to agree to redeployment.
- The tribunal found the respondent had made reasonable adjustments and acted proportionately in dismissing the claimant.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Housing Solutions Assistant on a fixed-term contract.
-
Permanent employment
Claimant's employment became permanent.
-
Mental breakdown
Claimant experienced a complete mental breakdown and began long-term sickness absence.
-
Unsuccessful return to work
Claimant attempted to return to work but could not maintain attendance beyond one day.
-
Phased return started
Claimant began a four-week phased return to work with reduced duties and hours.
-
Final Attendance Review meeting
Mr Keaveney offered three redeployment options; claimant rejected them.
-
Dismissal decision
Claimant was dismissed with four weeks' notice after declining redeployment.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for capability (long-term sickness) was unfair, and whether the employer discriminated against him by failing to make reasonable adjustments, harassing him, or treating him unfavourably because of his disability.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It held that the respondent had made reasonable adjustments, including a phased return and reduced duties, and had offered three redeployment options which the claimant rejected. The dismissal was therefore fair and not discriminatory.
No compensation was awarded as the respondent succeeded on all grounds.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should offer genuine redeployment options before dismissing for long-term sickness; refusal of suitable alternatives can make dismissal fair.
- A phased return with reduced duties is a reasonable adjustment that tribunals will credit, even if the employee remains unable to return to their substantive role.
- Employees who reject reasonable redeployment offers risk losing unfair dismissal claims, as the employer's duty to consider alternatives is met.
- Long-term sickness dismissals require a fair process and consideration of alternatives; a well-documented capability procedure protects the employer.
This case shows how a capability dismissal for long-term sickness can be fair when the employer has genuinely tried to support the employee back to work. The claimant, a Housing Solutions Assistant with PTSD, depression and anxiety, had been absent for over a year. After a phased return in November 2019, he was unwilling to return to his substantive role and rejected three redeployment options offered by his manager.
What the employer did right
Central Bedfordshire Council kept the claimant informed throughout his absence, arranged occupational health reviews, and implemented a phased return with reduced hours and duties. When it became clear he could not return to his original role, the council identified alternative positions and discussed them with him. The tribunal noted that the claimant's refusal to consider any redeployment left the employer with no realistic alternative but to dismiss.
What the claimant could have done differently
While the claimant's health struggles were genuine, his unwillingness to engage with redeployment options weakened his case. The tribunal found that the council had acted proportionately and within the range of reasonable responses. The dismissal was not discriminatory because the council had made reasonable adjustments and the reason for dismissal was capability, not disability.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that rejecting reasonable redeployment offers can undermine an unfair dismissal claim. For employers, it confirms that a thorough capability process, including genuine attempts to find alternative work, can justify dismissal even for a disabled employee with long-term sickness.
Similar cases
Dismissed while on sick leave: employer ignored offer of imminent return
A tribunal found that EE Limited unfairly dismissed a broadband technical support worker with panic disorder after it refused to wait a week for her to return to work, and also discriminated against her because of her disability.
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.
Dismissed after 12 years due to long-term sickness: employer's redeployment efforts upheld
A Food Technology Technician with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for capability after a long-term sickness absence, the tribunal ruled, finding the employer had properly considered redeployment and made reasonable adjustments.
27-year social worker dismissed after 9 months' sick leave: tribunal upholds council's decision
Birmingham City Council fairly dismissed a Senior Practitioner with 27 years' service after a 9-month sickness absence for bereavement stress. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.