Redundancy selection after a workplace injury: when a fair process can still lead to dismissal
A Food and Beverage Assistant who fractured his hip at work and was later made redundant during the pandemic has lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found the redundancy process was fair and that his disability was not the reason for his selection.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Food and Beverage Assistant from 9 October 2015 until dismissal on 6 November 2020.
- On 13 June 2019, the claimant fractured his left hip at work and underwent a total hip replacement the next day.
- The claimant was absent from work from 14 June 2019 until dismissal, never returning to work.
- The respondent initiated a redundancy process due to the Covid-19 pandemic, reducing headcount by about 30%.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy based on a selection matrix scoring attendance, discipline, work performance, and skills.
- The claimant's scores were based on his pre-injury performance, and he received full marks for attendance and discipline.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started as a casual Food and Beverage Assistant; became permanent on 1 January 2017.
-
Accident at work
Claimant fell and fractured his left hip while clearing a meeting room.
-
Hip replacement surgery
Claimant underwent total hip replacement and began sickness absence.
-
Occupational Health assessment
Claimant met with an Occupational Health Advisor; report stated he could return to work in a role without moderate/heavy tasks.
-
Return to work meeting
Meeting with Commercial Director Olivia MacGill; claimant rejected trial in Business Centre; respondent learned of claimant's depression.
-
Hotel closed due to lockdown
Hotel closed due to Covid-19; claimant placed on furlough.
-
Redundancy consultation announced
Respondent announced formal redundancy consultation due to business downturn.
-
First individual consultation meeting
Claimant attended first 1:1 meeting; he indicated he did not wish to be considered for redeployment.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal hearing with Area General Manager Stewart Lorrimer; appeal rejected.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, and whether the respondent discriminated against him arising from disability or failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy, not disability. The selection matrix used by Hilton was based on objective criteria (attendance, discipline, work performance, and skills) and was applied consistently across the pool. The claimant received full marks for attendance and discipline because his absence was injury-related, and his performance scores were based on pre-injury work.
The tribunal also rejected the disability discrimination claims. It held that Hilton had made reasonable adjustments by obtaining occupational health advice, considering alternative roles (which the claimant declined), and placing him on furlough. The claimant's rejection of a trial in the Business Centre was a key factor; the employer was not required to force a role on him.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- A redundancy process can be fair even if the employee is on long-term sick leave, provided the selection criteria are objective and applied neutrally.
- Employees who reject suitable alternative roles during consultation risk weakening any later claim that the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments.
- Employers should document all steps taken to explore redeployment and adjustments, including occupational health referrals and offers of trial periods.
- Disability discrimination claims based on redundancy selection are difficult to win if the scoring criteria are not directly linked to the disability and are applied consistently.
A workplace injury that led to redundancy
The claimant, a Food and Beverage Assistant with five years' service, fractured his hip at work in June 2019 and underwent a total hip replacement. He never returned to work. In July 2020, Hilton UK Hotels Limited began a redundancy process due to the Covid-19 pandemic, reducing headcount by about 30%. The claimant was selected for redundancy based on a scoring matrix that assessed attendance, discipline, work performance, and skills. His scores were based on his pre-injury performance, and he received full marks for attendance and discipline because his absence was due to the accident.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that Hilton had acted reasonably. The redundancy was genuine, the consultation was adequate, and the selection criteria were objective. The claimant had been offered a trial in the Business Centre but declined, and he indicated he did not wish to be considered for redeployment. The tribunal noted that the employer had obtained occupational health advice and had considered adjustments. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Why the disability claims failed
The claimant argued that his selection was influenced by his disability (impaired mobility and depression) and that Hilton failed to make reasonable adjustments. However, the tribunal found no causal link between his disability and his redundancy score. The matrix gave him full marks for attendance despite his long absence, and his performance scores were based on his work before the injury. The tribunal also held that Hilton had made reasonable adjustments by exploring alternative roles and obtaining medical advice. The claimant's refusal of the Business Centre trial was a significant factor.
Key takeaways for similar cases
This case shows that a fair redundancy process can survive a disability discrimination challenge if the employer follows objective criteria and engages meaningfully with the employee. Employees on long-term sick leave should be aware that redundancy selection can still apply to them, but they should also consider any alternative roles offered during consultation. Refusing a reasonable trial may weaken a later claim for failure to make adjustments.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal upheld after COVID revenue drop: a fair process
A Customer Services Officer with 5 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after her employer's room hire revenue plummeted during the pandemic. The tribunal rejected claims of disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
20-year manager dismissed for capability after employer refused to adjust role for disability
A Global Governance Risk and Compliance Manager with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after GlaxoSmithKline failed to make reasonable adjustments for her hand disability. The tribunal awarded £24,785 for injury to feelings.
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.