Dismissed after 24 years for inability to work shifts: lupus discrimination claim succeeds
A production operator with 24 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against when his employer failed to consider day shifts or redeployment for his lupus condition. The tribunal found GlaxoSmithKline's capability process was flawed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #shift-work
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #redeployment
- #lupus
Key facts
- The claimant was diagnosed with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (Lupus) in 2015.
- The claimant's condition was aggravated by shift work, particularly night shifts.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on grounds of capability due to his inability to work shifts.
- The respondent failed to consider adjustments such as a fixed day shift or redeployment.
- The claimant had 24 years of service and was a loyal employee.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Production Operator.
-
Diagnosed with Lupus
Claimant diagnosed with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.
-
Meeting on adjustments
Meeting held to discuss adjustments; no record kept.
-
Occupational Health assessment
Occupational Health noted shift work negatively affects claimant's health.
-
Disability in Workplace meeting
Formal meeting; redeployment process triggered.
-
Secondment to Document Author
Claimant seconded to Document Author role, working day shifts.
-
Third Occupational Health assessment
Dr Coutinho recommended reasonable adjustments but no risk assessment done.
-
Meeting leading to dismissal
Decision to dismiss claimant on capability grounds.
-
Dismissal letter
Claimant given notice of dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal against dismissal heard; unsuccessful.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal on capability grounds was unfair and whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability (lupus), including failing to offer fixed day shifts or redeployment to suitable vacancies.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination (both section 15 and failure to make reasonable adjustments).
Key reasons:
- The employer did not properly consider allowing the claimant to work day shifts in his substantive role as a reasonable adjustment.
- The employer failed to shortlist the claimant for three suitable alternative roles (Compliance Co-Ordinator, Learning and Development Advisor, Document Co-Ordinator) or offer trial periods.
- The capability dismissal was procedurally flawed and outside the range of reasonable responses given the claimant's long service and the availability of adjustments.
Compensation is to be determined at a separate remedy hearing; no figures were awarded in this judgment.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must actively consider all reasonable adjustments, including changes to shift patterns or redeployment, before dismissing a disabled employee on capability grounds.
- Long-serving employees (here 24 years) are entitled to a more thorough process; failing to explore alternatives can make a dismissal unfair.
- Occupational health recommendations should be taken seriously and acted upon; ignoring or delaying implementation can support a discrimination claim.
- If an employee's disability is aggravated by a specific working pattern, offering a fixed shift may be a simple and effective adjustment.
- Redeployment should be considered even if the employee is not the 'best' candidate; a trial period may be a reasonable adjustment.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of properly considering reasonable adjustments before dismissing a disabled employee on capability grounds. The claimant, a production operator with 24 years' service at GlaxoSmithKline, developed lupus in 2015. His condition was aggravated by shift work, particularly night shifts. Despite occupational health recommendations and a successful secondment to a day-working document author role, the employer dismissed him when he could not return to his substantive shift-working role.
The tribunal found that the employer failed to consider obvious adjustments: allowing the claimant to work fixed day shifts in his original role, or redeploying him to suitable vacancies such as Compliance Co-Ordinator or Document Co-Ordinator. The employer's capability process was rushed and did not give proper weight to the claimant's long service or the availability of alternative roles.
What the employer could have done differently
GlaxoSmithKline could have avoided this outcome by taking a more flexible approach. First, it could have considered whether the claimant could work day shifts permanently in his production operator role, which would have addressed the shift-work trigger for his lupus. Second, it could have shortlisted him for the three roles he was interested in and offered trial periods, as recommended by occupational health. Instead, the employer focused narrowly on his inability to work shifts and did not explore these alternatives.
Why the result matters
This decision reinforces that employers cannot simply dismiss a disabled employee because they cannot perform one aspect of their role, especially when reasonable adjustments are available. The tribunal emphasised that the duty to make adjustments is proactive and requires genuine consideration of all options, including redeployment. For employees with long service, the bar for a fair dismissal is higher, and a failure to follow a proper process will likely result in a finding of unfair dismissal and discrimination. Compensation will be determined at a later remedy hearing.
Similar cases
Dismissed while hospitalised with sickle cell crisis: procedural failings made it unfair
A pharmacist with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Whittington Health NHS Trust after being refused an extension to her notice period while hospitalised with a sickle cell crisis. The tribunal found indirect disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments, awarding £16,884.
20-year manager dismissed for capability after employer refused to adjust role for disability
A Global Governance Risk and Compliance Manager with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after GlaxoSmithKline failed to make reasonable adjustments for her hand disability. The tribunal awarded £24,785 for injury to feelings.
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.
Long-term sick nurse dismissed: capability process found fair despite disability
A staff nurse with 12 years' service who was dismissed after two years' sick leave and failed redeployment attempts has lost her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims.