Paramedic with PTSD unfairly dismissed after redeployment efforts fell short
A HART paramedic with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after developing PTSD from a training incident. The tribunal awarded £26,087 in compensation.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Mr Cowland was a HART Paramedic who developed PTSD after an incident during training on 16 January 2020.
- He made a protected disclosure about the incident to his employer on 19 January 2020.
- The Trust accepted Mr Cowland was disabled due to PTSD and knew of his disability.
- Mr Cowland returned to work in a non-patient facing role (Frequent Caller Team) from June 2020 until dismissal.
- The Trust dismissed Mr Cowland on capability grounds on 21 April 2021, after 13 months' absence from his substantive role.
- The Tribunal found the dismissal was discriminatory arising from disability and unfair, but not because of the protected disclosure.
Timeline
-
Joined Trust
Mr Cowland joined South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust as a frontline Paramedic.
-
Training incident
During a HART training exercise, Mr Cowland experienced heat stress and panic, leading to a recurrence of PTSD symptoms.
-
Protected disclosure
Mr Cowland emailed his manager detailing the incident and raising health and safety concerns.
-
Signed off sick
Mr Cowland was signed off work by his GP due to PTSD.
-
Returned to work in FCT
Mr Cowland returned to work in the Frequent Caller Team, a non-patient facing role.
-
Stage 3 meeting (adjourned)
First Stage 3 sickness absence meeting; adjourned for three months to allow more time for redeployment.
-
Stage 3 reconvened
Second Stage 3 meeting; discussed options including clinical hub trial and redeployment.
-
Dismissal decision
Third Stage 3 meeting; Mr Stonehouse informed Mr Cowland he was dismissed on capability grounds.
-
Dismissal effective
Mr Cowland's employment was terminated.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal against dismissal heard and dismissed by Mrs Matthews.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the paramedic's dismissal for incapability to return to his substantive role was discriminatory arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010, and whether it was unfair under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability, but dismissed the claims of automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure and direct disability discrimination.
Key reasons:
- The Trust knew the paramedic was disabled due to PTSD and that his inability to return to his substantive role was a consequence of that disability.
- The dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of that inability, and the Trust failed to justify it as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
- The Trust's redeployment efforts were insufficient; it did not properly consider alternative roles or obtain up-to-date occupational health advice.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £3,808.00
- Compensatory award: £500.00
- Total: £26,087.04 (includes other heads not specified)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must actively explore all reasonable redeployment options before dismissing an employee who is disabled and cannot return to their original role.
- Relying on outdated medical reports without seeking updated evidence can undermine a capability dismissal, especially when the employee offers fresh reports.
- A protected disclosure claim requires the disclosure to be the principal reason for dismissal; a separate capability process can break that causal link.
- Long-serving employees with a good record are entitled to a thorough process; failing to consider alternative roles or adjust procedures can make a dismissal unfair.
When redeployment isn't enough: a lesson in disability discrimination
This case shows how an employer's failure to properly consider redeployment can turn a capability dismissal into unlawful discrimination. The paramedic, a 7-year veteran of the South Western Ambulance Service, developed PTSD after a traumatic training incident. Although the Trust accepted his disability and allowed him to work in a non-patient facing role for nearly a year, when he could not return to his substantive HART paramedic post, the Trust moved to dismiss him on capability grounds.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was 'something arising from' his disability — his PTSD prevented him from returning to the frontline role — and the Trust could not justify it. The Trust argued it needed to use public funds efficiently, but the tribunal said the dismissal was not proportionate because the Trust had not done enough to find alternative work. It had rejected a trial in the clinical hub and failed to obtain an up-to-date occupational health report, relying instead on a six-month-old assessment.
What the Trust could have done differently
The key failing was the lack of a genuine redeployment search. The paramedic had already shown he could work in a different role, but the Trust did not explore other options or wait for a promised occupational health update. A more thorough process — including considering adjustments and obtaining current medical advice — might have led to a different outcome. The tribunal also noted that the paramedic had made a protected disclosure about the training incident, but this was not the reason for his dismissal; the capability process was separate and genuine.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees with disabilities, this case reinforces that employers must take reasonable steps to redeploy before dismissing, even when the employee cannot return to their original job. The duty to make reasonable adjustments extends to considering alternative roles. For employers, it highlights the risk of relying on outdated medical evidence and failing to engage with the employee's suggestions. The compensation here was modest — £26,087 — but the principle is significant: a dismissal that is discriminatory because of disability cannot be saved by a legitimate aim if the means are not proportionate.
Similar cases
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Dismissed after 10-month absence: employer's reasonable adjustments were enough
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an assistant branch manager with 28 years' service who was absent for 10 months with anxiety. The employer had offered multiple adjustments but the claimant insisted on a customer ban.
Procurement director's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing and disability fails
A procurement director who resigned after raising concerns about commission on expired contracts has lost her tribunal claims for constructive unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination.
Dismissed during long-term sick leave: employer failed to get specialist medical advice
A quality control technologist with back pain and depression was unfairly dismissed after his employer relied on a GP report and failed to obtain occupational health advice. Tribunal awards £129,970.