Redundancy of neighbourhood manager with epilepsy: disability claims fail
A neighbourhood manager with 13 years' service was made redundant when external funding for her role ended. The tribunal dismissed her claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, finding the redundancy process was fair and unrelated to her epilepsy.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #redundancy
- #epilepsy
- #anxiety
- #training-and-development
- #consultation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Dalgarno Neighbourhood Manager from 22 October 2007 to 31 October 2020.
- The role was funded by five housing providers forming the Dalgarno Neighbourhood Management Alliance (DNMA).
- The claimant was diagnosed with focal epilepsy in June 2016 and informed her employer in July 2016.
- The DNMA partners decided in January 2020 not to continue funding the role, leading to redundancy.
- The claimant was given adequate warning and consultation, and alternative roles were considered.
- The tribunal found no connection between the claimant's disability and the treatment complained of.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant started as Dalgarno Neighbourhood Manager.
-
Epilepsy diagnosis
Claimant diagnosed with focal epilepsy.
-
Disclosure to employer
Claimant informed her line manager Susan Clinton of her epilepsy.
-
Adam Knight becomes manager
Adam Knight became Head of Housing and the claimant's line manager.
-
Zoe Pratten becomes manager
Zoe Pratten became Head of Housing (North London) and the claimant's line manager.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance about uncertainty and lack of communication.
-
Grievance outcome
Grievance partially upheld; claimant told role extremely unlikely to continue beyond October 2020.
-
DNMA partners meeting
Partners agreed there was no ongoing need for the claimant's role.
-
At risk notice
Claimant formally informed her role was at risk of redundancy.
-
Redundancy notice
Claimant given formal notice of redundancy, employment ending 31 October 2020.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether the respondent directly discriminated against her or discriminated against her because of something arising from her disability (epilepsy and anxiety).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims.
- The redundancy was genuine: the external funding body decided not to continue funding the role, and the employer had no alternative funding.
- The consultation process was adequate: the claimant was given warning, consulted, and alternative roles were considered.
- There was no evidence that the claimant's disability influenced the redundancy decision or the way it was handled.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine redundancy situation, such as loss of external funding, can be a fair reason for dismissal if the employer follows a proper process.
- Disability discrimination claims require a causal link between the disability and the treatment complained of; a fair redundancy process will not be undermined by the employee's disability alone.
- Employees should raise any concerns about the process or disability-related adjustments at the time, as failure to do so may weaken a later claim.
- Long service does not automatically make a redundancy unfair if the role is genuinely redundant and consultation is adequate.
When funding ends: a genuine redundancy
This case shows that a redundancy can be fair even when the employee has a long service record and a disability. The claimant, a neighbourhood manager for 13 years, lost her role after the consortium that funded her post decided not to renew its support. The employer, Clarion Housing Group, had no control over that decision and could not continue to fund the role itself.
The tribunal accepted that the redundancy was genuine and that the employer acted reasonably. It gave the claimant adequate warning, consulted her, and considered alternative roles. The fact that the claimant had epilepsy and anxiety did not change the outcome because there was no evidence that her disability played any part in the decision to dismiss her or in the way the process was handled.
What the employer did right
Clarion Housing Group followed a structured redundancy process. It informed the claimant early that her role was at risk, held consultation meetings, and looked for suitable alternative positions. The tribunal noted that the employer's actions fell within the range of reasonable responses expected of a reasonable employer. This is the key test for unfair dismissal.
For disability discrimination claims, the tribunal found no link between the claimant's epilepsy or anxiety and any of the alleged acts. The redundancy was driven purely by the loss of funding, and the process was applied consistently. The claimant's grievance about lack of communication was partially upheld, but that did not make the redundancy unfair or discriminatory.
What this means for similar claims
Employees in similar situations should remember that a redundancy is not automatically unfair just because it feels sudden or because they have a disability. The key questions are whether the role is genuinely redundant and whether the employer acted reasonably in the process. If the employer follows a fair procedure and the decision is not tainted by discrimination, the tribunal is likely to uphold the dismissal.
For employers, this case reinforces the importance of documenting the business rationale for redundancy and maintaining a clear, consultative process. Even when the decision is driven by external factors, a fair process is essential to defend against claims.
Similar cases
University academic unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy consultation over retained post
A University of Leicester academic was unfairly dismissed when the university failed to properly consult on redundancy selection after changing its proposal to retain a permanent post. The tribunal awarded £72,487.50 in compensation.
Dismissed for redundancy that wasn't genuine: a warning for employers
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after her employer failed to prove a genuine redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £1,921.85 in compensation.
Disability discrimination claim based on mother's disability struck out
A tribunal struck out a former employee's claim that she was discriminated against because of her caring responsibilities for her disabled mother, ruling that section 15 of the Equality Act does not cover discrimination by association.
Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.