Sales advisor with 7 years' service unfairly dismissed in redundancy selection due to disability assumptions
A sales advisor with Polymyositis was unfairly dismissed after being scored lowest in a redundancy selection matrix that made incorrect assumptions about her ability to work alone. The tribunal awarded £46,658.71, with a 50% Polkey reduction.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a sales advisor from 17 April 2014 until 17 July 2020.
- The claimant was disabled due to Polymyositis, causing fatigue, muscle weakness, and breathlessness.
- The respondent conducted a redundancy selection process in July 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The claimant was scored lowest on the selection matrix and was dismissed for redundancy.
- The tribunal found that the respondent made incorrect assumptions about the claimant's abilities under criterion 8 (ability to work alone).
- The tribunal held that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against the claimant arising from disability.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as a sales advisor for the respondent.
-
Occupational health report
An occupational health report noted the claimant's difficulties with mobility and recommended adjustments.
-
Furloughed due to COVID-19
The claimant was furloughed along with other colleagues.
-
Furlough ended
The claimant returned to work from home due to shielding concerns.
-
At risk of redundancy letter
The claimant was informed she was at risk of redundancy and invited to consultation meetings.
-
First consultation meeting
The claimant attended a Zoom meeting where the selection matrix was shown but not clearly visible.
-
Second consultation meeting
The claimant discussed the selection criteria and raised concerns about criterion 8.
-
Scoring completed
The claimant was scored 79 out of 110, the lowest score, leading to her selection for redundancy.
-
Dismissed for redundancy
The claimant was dismissed with immediate effect and paid in lieu of notice.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal was heard by Mr Fletcher, who upheld the dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the redundancy selection process was fair and whether the employer discriminated against the employee by making assumptions about her disability when scoring her on the 'ability to work alone' criterion, and by failing to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the employee was unfairly dismissed and that the employer had discriminated against her arising from disability and failed to make reasonable adjustments. However, it applied a 50% Polkey reduction, meaning there was a 50% chance she would have been fairly dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed.
Compensation:
- Total damages: £46,658.71
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must not make assumptions about a disabled employee's abilities during redundancy scoring; they should rely on objective evidence and consider reasonable adjustments.
- A failure to make reasonable adjustments in a redundancy process can lead to a finding of discrimination, even if the redundancy situation is genuine.
- Tribunals may apply a Polkey reduction where there is evidence that a fair process would likely have led to the same outcome, so claimants should be prepared for this possibility.
A redundancy process that went wrong
This case shows how a well-intentioned redundancy exercise can become discriminatory when employers rely on assumptions rather than evidence. The sales advisor, who had worked for J. S. Bloor (Services) Limited for seven years, was diagnosed with Polymyositis, a condition causing fatigue, muscle weakness, and breathlessness. When the company restructured due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she was placed at risk of redundancy and scored on a selection matrix.
The problem arose under criterion 8, 'ability to work alone'. The employer assumed that because of her disability, she could not work alone on a five-day site. But the tribunal found this assumption was incorrect and not based on any medical evidence or consultation with the employee. The employer had not considered reasonable adjustments, such as providing a stool or allowing rest breaks, which could have enabled her to work alone safely.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer had an occupational health report from December 2019 that recommended adjustments, but it did not use this to inform the redundancy scoring. Instead, it relied on its own assumptions. A fair process would have involved discussing the criteria with the employee, considering her actual capabilities, and making adjustments to the scoring or the role itself. The tribunal noted that the employee had been working from home after furlough and had not raised concerns about her ability to work alone.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy selection criteria must be applied fairly and without discrimination. Employers should ensure that managers are trained to avoid making assumptions about disability and to seek objective evidence. For employees, it shows that even in a genuine redundancy situation, a claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination can succeed if the process is flawed. However, the 50% Polkey reduction means that compensation may be reduced if the tribunal thinks the employee would have been dismissed anyway under a fair process.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal and disability discrimination upheld against Mazars LLP
A former employee won claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against Mazars LLP after the firm failed to make reasonable adjustments and subjected him to harassment.
Faculty manager with 23 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy selection tainted by disability bias
A tribunal found that Canterbury Christ Church University unfairly dismissed a faculty manager and discriminated against her because of her disability when it decided she was not appointable to a new role due to her ill health. She was awarded £32,684.
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.
Council failed to adjust duties for loader with depression: constructive dismissal and discrimination
A driver/loader with depression was constructively dismissed after Dacorum Borough Council refused to let him work as a loader and later changed his terms. The tribunal awarded £24,324.43.