Production operative dismissed after nine months' sick leave: employer acted fairly
A production operative with six years' service was fairly dismissed on capability grounds after nine months' absence due to foot pain. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #disability-discrimination
- #occupational-health
- #foot-condition
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #medical-capability-hearing
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a production operative from 2 April 2013 until dismissal on 9 April 2019.
- She went on sick leave on 31 July 2018 due to foot pain and remained absent until dismissal.
- The respondent obtained multiple occupational health reports and GP fit notes all stating she was unfit for work.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on grounds of capability (ill health) after a medical capability hearing on 9 April 2019.
- The tribunal found the respondent acted reasonably and dismissed all claims.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a production operative at Faccenda Foods Limited.
-
Sick leave began
Claimant obtained a fit note for foot pain and commenced long-term sick leave.
-
First occupational health report
OH nurse Margo Baynham assessed claimant and found her unfit for work, recommending footwear when fit to return.
-
Second occupational health report
OH adviser Matt Thomason assessed claimant and advised she remained unfit for work, recommending appropriate footwear when able to return.
-
Third occupational health report
Mr Thomason assessed claimant again; she remained unfit for work due to foot and wrist issues.
-
Fourth occupational health report
Mr Thomason assessed claimant; she continued to have foot pain and was unfit for work.
-
Fifth occupational health report
Mr Thomason assessed claimant and advised she would remain unfit for all work for at least six months.
-
Medical capability hearing and dismissal
Production manager Ben Harris conducted a hearing and decided to dismiss the claimant on medical grounds.
-
Claim form presented
Claimant submitted her claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss the claimant on medical grounds was fair and whether it discriminated against her by dismissing her due to her disability and failing to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the employer genuinely believed the claimant was no longer capable of performing her duties after nine months' absence and five occupational health reports all stating she was unfit for work. The employer had consulted her adequately and waited a reasonable time before dismissing. There was no discrimination because the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (efficient operation of the business), and the employer had not failed to make reasonable adjustments as the claimant had not requested any specific adjustments while off sick.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should obtain up-to-date medical evidence and consult with the employee before dismissing on capability grounds.
- Long-term sickness absence can justify dismissal if there is no reasonable prospect of a return to work within a reasonable timeframe.
- Disability discrimination claims based on dismissal may fail if the employer can show the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
- Employees who want reasonable adjustments should request them specifically; employers are not expected to guess what adjustments are needed.
A fair process for a difficult decision
This case shows that employers can fairly dismiss an employee who is long-term sick, provided they follow a thorough process. The claimant, a production operative, had been off work for nine months with foot pain. Her employer, Faccenda Foods Limited, obtained five separate occupational health reports, all of which stated she was unfit for work and gave no clear return date. The employer also held a medical capability hearing before deciding to dismiss.
The tribunal noted that the employer had genuine concerns about the claimant's ability to return to work and had waited a reasonable time. The claimant had not provided any medical evidence suggesting she would be fit soon. The employer's decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
What the employer did right
Faccenda Foods did not rush to dismiss. It kept in touch with the claimant, obtained regular medical updates, and considered alternative roles. The tribunal highlighted that the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's incapacity, based on the medical evidence. The dismissal was for capability, not because of the disability itself, and the employer had a legitimate business need to fill the role.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The claimant also argued that her dismissal was discrimination arising from disability and that the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments. However, the tribunal found that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim – the efficient operation of the business. The employer had considered adjustments but none were identified that would have enabled the claimant to return to work. The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments also failed because the claimant had not requested any specific adjustments while off sick.
Key takeaways for similar cases
This case reinforces that employers who follow a fair process and rely on up-to-date medical evidence can defend capability dismissals. For employees, it highlights the importance of engaging with the employer and providing medical evidence that shows a realistic return date. Without that, a dismissal may be fair even if the employee has a disability.
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.
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.
