Lecturer with 25 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy scoring penalised disability-related absence
A lecturer with 25 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against when his college used a redundancy scoring matrix that penalised him for disability-related sickness absence. The tribunal awarded £89,760.25.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent for 25 years as a lecturer.
- The claimant was absent for 5 months in 2018 due to anxiety and depression.
- The respondent conceded the claimant was disabled by reason of diabetes and stress, anxiety, and depression.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy after scoring low on a matrix due to his sickness absence.
- The respondent conceded the claimant was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against.
- The tribunal found the respondent knew or ought to have known of the claimant's disability at the material times.
Timeline
-
Diagnosed with diabetes
The claimant was diagnosed with diabetes and notified his employer.
-
Return to work meeting
The claimant attended a return to work meeting with Karen Northover, showing a letter from Dorset Wellbeing indicating poor mental health.
-
Signed off work with depression and anxiety
The claimant was signed off work by his GP with depression and anxiety, beginning a 5-month absence.
-
Occupational health report
An OH report detailed the claimant's anxiety and depression, medication, and counselling.
-
Returned to work
The claimant returned to work after 5 months of sickness absence.
-
At risk of redundancy
The claimant was notified he was at risk of redundancy in a consultation meeting.
-
Selected for redundancy
The claimant was told he would be made redundant after scoring low on the matrix.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal against redundancy was heard and dismissed by Michael Johnson.
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment was terminated by reason of redundancy.
-
Liability hearing
The employment tribunal heard the case over 6 days in June 2022.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the college knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was disabled by reason of stress, anxiety and depression at the time of the redundancy process. This was the key issue because the college conceded the dismissal was unfair and discriminatory if such knowledge existed.
The outcome
The tribunal found that Bournemouth & Poole College unfairly dismissed the claimant and discriminated against him by failing to make reasonable adjustments and by treating him unfavourably because of something arising from his disability.
The college conceded the dismissal was unfair and that the redundancy scoring disadvantaged the claimant due to his disability-related absence. However, it argued it did not know he was disabled by stress, anxiety and depression. The tribunal rejected this, finding the college had constructive knowledge based on the information available.
Compensation of £89,760.25 was awarded, including:
- Basic award: not specified separately
- Compensatory award: not specified separately
- No Polkey or contributory fault reductions were applied.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure redundancy selection criteria do not indirectly penalise employees for disability-related absence.
- If an employee has a long period of sickness absence, employers should consider whether they have constructive knowledge of a disability, even without a formal diagnosis.
- Reasonable adjustments to redundancy processes (e.g., using a different assessment period) may be required for disabled employees.
- Conceding unfair dismissal does not automatically resolve discrimination claims – knowledge of disability remains a key issue.
- Length of service (here 25 years) can strengthen a claim that the employer should have known about the disability.
When redundancy scoring penalises disability-related absence
This case shows how a well-intentioned redundancy process can still lead to unfair dismissal and disability discrimination if it fails to account for an employee's health conditions. The claimant, a lecturer with 25 years' service, was selected for redundancy after a scoring matrix gave him low marks partly because of a five-month sickness absence. That absence was caused by anxiety and depression – conditions the college later conceded were disabilities.
The tribunal found that the college knew or should have known about the claimant's disability. He had provided a letter from a wellbeing service and an occupational health report detailing his mental health struggles. Despite this, the college used a scoring system that penalised him for the very absence caused by his disability, without making any adjustments.
What the college could have done differently
The college could have avoided this outcome by recognising the link between the claimant's absence and his disability. A reasonable adjustment – such as using a different assessment period that excluded the disability-related absence – would have been simple to implement. Instead, the college pressed ahead with a process that disadvantaged the claimant, leading to findings of both unfair dismissal and discrimination under sections 15 and 20/21 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also noted that the college's own witnesses conceded the process was not proportionate. By the time of the hearing, the college had admitted the dismissal was unfair and that the scoring was unfavourable treatment arising from disability. The only real dispute was whether it knew about the disability – and the tribunal found it did.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees facing redundancy while on or returning from sickness absence, this case is a reminder that employers must consider whether the absence is disability-related. If it is, they have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to the selection process. For employers, the lesson is clear: ignoring medical evidence and failing to adjust scoring criteria can be costly – here, the compensation award was nearly £90,000.
Similar cases
Seasonal groundsman dismissed while running own business: disability discrimination claims fail
A seasonal groundsman who was dismissed while signed off sick lost his disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims after the tribunal found he was not genuinely unable to work due to his disability but was instead pursuing his own private businesses.
33-year rail operative unfairly dismissed after redundancy scoring ignored disability-related role change
A rail operative with 33 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against when a redundancy skills matrix penalised him for skills that had lapsed due to a disability-related move. Tribunal awards £100,250.
Production operative dismissed during long-term sick leave: unfair dismissal claim fails on service
A production operative who was dismissed while on sick leave for plantar fasciitis and depression lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service. All disability discrimination claims were also dismissed.
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.