Creative Manager loses unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims over redundancy
A Creative Manager with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims that the process was discriminatory or procedurally unfair.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #disability-discrimination
- #furlough
- #ocd
- #generalised-anxiety-disorder
- #fibromyalgia
- #time-limits
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Creative Manager from 1 November 2010 until dismissal on 7 December 2020.
- The respondent conceded the claimant was disabled due to fibromyalgia but not due to OCD or GAD.
- The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled by reason of OCD or GAD at the material time.
- The claimant was placed on furlough in April 2020 and later selected for redundancy as part of a restructure.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was for redundancy and the procedure was fair.
- All discrimination and victimisation claims were dismissed as unsubstantiated.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment with the University of Nottingham as a Creative Manager.
-
First meeting with Ms Anderton
Claimant met Ms Anderton for the first time; claimant later alleged Ms Anderton said she was not qualified and commented on dress and workspace.
-
Return-to-work meeting
Claimant raised concerns about flexible working and unpaid hours with line manager James Tomkinson.
-
Ms Potts became line manager
Ms Potts became the claimant's line manager.
-
Line management transferred
Claimant's line management transferred from Ms Potts to Ms Anderton due to concerns about attendance and responsiveness.
-
Furlough started
Claimant was placed on furlough due to COVID-19; she was not told it was optional.
-
First redundancy consultation
First consultation meeting regarding proposed redundancy.
-
Redundancy confirmed
Claimant was confirmed redundant; effective date of termination 7 December 2020.
-
Claim presented
Claimant submitted her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for redundancy, whether she was subjected to direct disability discrimination or victimisation, and whether the university made unauthorised deductions from wages or failed to pay holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the University of Nottingham had a genuine redundancy situation and followed a fair consultation process. The claimant was not disabled by OCD or GAD at the material time (only fibromyalgia was conceded), so the discrimination claims could not succeed. The unauthorised deductions and holiday pay claims also failed.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- A fair redundancy process — including genuine consultation and objective selection criteria — can defeat an unfair dismissal claim even if the employee has long service.
- To bring a disability discrimination claim, you must show you were disabled at the time of the alleged discrimination; a later diagnosis may not help.
- Tribunals will scrutinise time limits strictly; claims brought outside the three-month window (plus early conciliation) may be rejected unless there is a good reason.
- Representing yourself is possible but challenging, especially in complex cases involving multiple legal issues and lengthy hearings.
A redundancy that survived scrutiny
This case shows that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed for redundancy if the employer follows a proper process. The claimant, a Creative Manager with ten years' service, was placed on furlough during the pandemic and later selected for redundancy as part of a restructure. She argued the real reason was disability-related, but the tribunal accepted the university's evidence that the role was genuinely redundant.
The tribunal noted that the consultation process included multiple meetings and the claimant was given an opportunity to comment on the selection criteria. While the claimant felt the process was a foregone conclusion, the tribunal found no evidence that the outcome was predetermined or that her disabilities played any part in the decision.
What the university did right
The University of Nottingham could point to a clear business rationale for the restructure and a transparent selection process. It also conceded that the claimant was disabled due to fibromyalgia, but the tribunal found that this did not affect the fairness of the redundancy. The key lesson for employers is that a well-documented redundancy process — with genuine consultation and objective criteria — will usually be upheld.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The claimant also alleged that she was disabled by OCD and generalised anxiety disorder, but the tribunal found that these conditions did not meet the legal definition of disability at the material time. Without a recognised disability, the discrimination and victimisation claims could not succeed. This highlights the importance of obtaining medical evidence early if you intend to rely on a disability.
A reminder on time limits
The tribunal also considered whether the claims were brought in time. While it found that some acts could amount to continuing conduct, the overall conclusion was that the claims were not time-barred. However, the case serves as a reminder that employment tribunal claims must be lodged within three months of the act complained of — or within a further period that is just and equitable.
Similar cases
Sales assistant with chronic kidney disease loses disability discrimination claim over furlough placement
A former nurse turned sales assistant who was placed on furlough during the pandemic due to shielding advice has lost her disability and age discrimination claims against Irvings Butchers Limited.
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.
Hotel manager's unfair dismissal claim dismissed as out of time despite ADHD
A tribunal dismissed a hotel manager's claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and unpaid wages because they were presented over a month late. The judge found that his ADHD did not prevent him from bringing the claim on time.
Line Driver's discrimination claims dismissed as out of time after redundancy
An employment tribunal dismissed all discrimination claims brought by a part-time Line Driver with 4 years' service against Manheim Limited, finding they were brought too late and lacked merit. The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn.