Redundancy dismissal upheld as fair despite disability, race and sex discrimination claims
An Executive Development Consultant with multiple sclerosis lost her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after the tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and fairly handled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an Executive Development Consultant from 7 March 2016 until 31 December 2019.
- The respondent restructured the Training and Consultancy Team, deleting the claimant's role.
- The claimant was the only in-house trainer remaining; the respondent decided to use external contractors.
- The claimant raised grievances and alleged discrimination based on disability (MS), race (West Indian), and sex (female).
- The tribunal found no evidence of discrimination, harassment, victimisation, or failure to make reasonable adjustments.
- The dismissal was by reason of redundancy and the process was fair.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant started work as an Executive Development Consultant.
-
Disclosure of MS
Claimant informed respondent of her MS diagnosis; adjustments were put in place.
-
Alleged harassment
Claimant alleged Mr Okuyiga made discriminatory comments about her disability to a colleague.
-
First grievance
Claimant raised a grievance about the alleged comments.
-
Hotdesking introduced
Respondent introduced a hotdesking policy after relocating.
-
Request for adjustments
Claimant requested a workplace assessment and designated desk.
-
Workplace assessment
Ergo at Work conducted an assessment; report received 22 September.
-
Board decision to restructure
Board of Trustees approved a reorganisation deleting the claimant's role.
-
Consultation meeting
Claimant informed of potential redundancy; consultation period began.
-
Redundancy confirmed
Claimant's role made redundant; employment to end 31 December 2019.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's employment terminated by reason of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was unfair, and whether she was subjected to direct discrimination, harassment, victimisation, or a failure to make reasonable adjustments on grounds of disability, race, or sex.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the redundancy was genuine: the respondent restructured the Training and Consultancy Team, deciding to use external contractors instead of an in-house trainer. The claimant was the only in-house trainer, so her role was deleted. The consultation process was fair, and there was no evidence that the decision was motivated by her disability, race, or sex.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine business reorganisation can be a fair reason for redundancy, even if it affects only one employee.
- Tribunals will scrutinise the process but won't second-guess a business decision if it is genuinely based on operational needs.
- Raising multiple discrimination claims without supporting evidence can weaken the overall case.
- Employers should ensure redundancy consultations are meaningful and consider alternatives, but they are not required to create a new role.
When a redundancy is genuine, discrimination claims may not stick
This case shows that a properly handled redundancy can survive claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination, even when the employee has a disability and has raised grievances. The claimant, an Executive Development Consultant with three years' service, had multiple sclerosis. She alleged that the redundancy was a sham and that she had been discriminated against because of her disability, race (West Indian) and sex (female).
What the employer did right
The respondent, The Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion, restructured its Training and Consultancy Team after deciding to use external trainers. The claimant was the only in-house trainer, so her role was deleted. The tribunal found the decision was a genuine business reorganisation, not a pretext. The respondent consulted with the claimant, considered alternatives, and followed a fair process. There was no evidence that the decision was linked to her protected characteristics.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The tribunal found no evidence of direct discrimination, harassment, or victimisation. A key incident – an alleged comment about her disability by a colleague – was not proven. The respondent had also made reasonable adjustments for her MS, including a workplace assessment and flexible working. The tribunal concluded that the respondent had acted reasonably throughout.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who believe a redundancy is discriminatory need to show evidence linking the decision to a protected characteristic. A genuine reorganisation, fairly carried out, will usually be upheld. Employers should document their business rationale and ensure meaningful consultation – but they are not required to create a new role or avoid redundancy simply because an employee has a disability.
Similar cases
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Late claim form costs employee unfair dismissal case despite discrimination claims proceeding
A senior customer service adviser with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim thrown out for being presented 4.5 months late, but his discrimination claims will proceed to a full hearing.
Wrongful dismissal claim succeeds as Tesco admits conduct was not gross misconduct
A Tesco night-shift customer assistant who was dismissed for gross misconduct has won his wrongful dismissal claim after the tribunal found he was entitled to notice pay. He was awarded £400.
Dental nurse's constructive dismissal and discrimination claims rejected by tribunal
A dental nurse who resigned after securing another job failed to prove she was constructively dismissed or that her employer discriminated against her. All claims were dismissed.