Redundancy dismissal upheld despite disability: Institute of Physics wins tribunal case
A Digital Delivery Manager with multiple sclerosis was fairly dismissed for redundancy, the tribunal ruled, finding a genuine redundancy situation and fair process despite disability discrimination claims.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The first claimant had multiple sclerosis, a deemed disability under the Equality Act 2010.
- The respondent restructured the digital team, deleting the roles of Digital Delivery Manager and Full Stack Developer.
- The claimants were informed of the restructure on 25 May 2022 and given job descriptions and salary ranges for new roles.
- The claimants declined to attend the second consultation meeting on 13 June 2022 and a rescheduled meeting on 21 June 2022.
- The claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 1 July 2022 and received enhanced redundancy payments.
- The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation and that the dismissal was fair.
Timeline
-
First claimant experiences MS symptoms
First claimant experienced numbness, heaviness, and hot/cold symptoms.
-
Diagnosed with Clinically Isolated Syndrome
First claimant was diagnosed with CIS, a precursor to MS.
-
First relapse with partial blindness
First claimant experienced partial blindness in one eye; MRI showed new lesion.
-
Second relapse
First claimant had an accident due to inability to move legs.
-
Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis
Professor Ciccarelli confirmed diagnosis of Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.
-
First claimant invited to apply for Digital Programme Manager role
Mr Panesor invited the first claimant to apply for a new role; she declined.
-
Claimants informed of restructure
At a team meeting, claimants were told their roles were at risk of redundancy and four new roles proposed.
-
First individual consultation meeting
Claimants attended but were not given job descriptions or salaries; meeting deemed ineffective.
-
Second consultation meeting scheduled
Claimants declined to attend, citing procedural issues.
-
Claimants dismissed by reason of redundancy
Both claimants received notice of redundancy and enhanced redundancy payments.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimants were unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and whether the first claimant was subjected to direct disability discrimination when she was dismissed and when she was informed that three out of four alternative vacancies were unsuitable for her.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that both claimants were not unfairly dismissed. The first claimant's claims of direct disability discrimination also failed.
Key reasons:
- The respondent had a genuine redundancy situation due to a restructure of the digital team.
- The consultation process, though not perfect, was reasonable overall. The claimants declined to attend the second consultation meeting.
- The first claimant's disability (multiple sclerosis) was not a factor in the dismissal or the handling of alternative roles.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine redundancy situation can justify dismissal even if the employee has a disability, provided the process is fair.
- Declining to attend consultation meetings can weaken a claim of unfair dismissal, as the employer may be seen as having made reasonable efforts.
- Disability discrimination claims require evidence that the disability directly influenced the employer's decision, not just that the employee was disabled at the time.
- Employers should ensure consultation meetings provide sufficient information, such as job descriptions and salary details, to be considered meaningful.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights that a redundancy dismissal can be fair even when the employee has a protected characteristic like disability. The Digital Delivery Manager had multiple sclerosis, a deemed disability under the Equality Act 2010, but the tribunal found that the Institute of Physics had a genuine redundancy situation and followed a fair process overall. The restructure of the digital team meant her role was deleted, and she was offered alternative roles which she declined.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimants argued that the consultation process was flawed, but the tribunal noted that they declined to attend the second consultation meeting. If they had attended, they might have been able to influence the outcome or strengthen their case. The first claimant also claimed direct disability discrimination, but the tribunal found no evidence that her disability played any part in the decisions made by the employer. To succeed in such a claim, there needs to be a clear link between the disability and the treatment complained of.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision serves as a reminder that not every dismissal of a disabled employee will be discriminatory. Employers can fairly dismiss for redundancy if they have a genuine business need and follow a reasonable process. Employees who feel their disability has been overlooked should gather evidence of direct discrimination, such as comments or actions that show the disability was a factor. The case also underscores the importance of engaging fully in consultation processes, as failure to do so can undermine a claim of unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
Part-time worker dismissed for redundancy without consultation: unfair dismissal but no discrimination
A part-time Operations Assistant with Long Covid was unfairly dismissed when her employer decided to make her redundant before any consultation. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but applied a 60% Polkey reduction.
Translator with MS won reasonable adjustments claim but lost redundancy challenge
An English to German translator with multiple sclerosis won her claim that her employer failed to make reasonable adjustments during redundancy consultation, but the tribunal upheld the redundancy dismissal as fair.
Redundancy dismissal upheld despite whistleblowing and disability claims
A tribunal dismissed all claims from a Member Services Administrator who argued his redundancy was a sham to cover up whistleblowing and disability discrimination. No compensation was awarded.
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.