Dismissed after a stroke: employer refused home working despite medical advice
A lettings manager who suffered a stroke was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused to allow him to work from home. The tribunal awarded £27,664.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Lettings Manager from March 2018 to February 2021.
- He suffered a stroke on 8 August 2020 and had multiple diabetes-related impairments.
- The respondent refused to allow him to work from home despite medical advice supporting a phased return.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for capability without genuine consultation.
- The tribunal found the respondent discriminated by failing to make reasonable adjustments.
- A 20% Polkey reduction was applied for the chance the claimant would have been dismissed anyway.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent on a part-time, ad hoc basis, later becoming full-time Lettings Manager.
-
Stroke suffered
Claimant suffered a stroke, leading to significant mobility issues and a requirement to shield from COVID-19.
-
Occupational therapist report
Occupational therapist Shelley Radcliffe wrote to the respondent recommending a graded return to work with administrative tasks from home.
-
Claimant requested phased return
Claimant emailed the respondent proposing a phased return over 4 weeks, working from home only, with no face-to-face contact due to shielding.
-
GP letter received
GP confirmed claimant could work from home with reduced hours and that postural hypotension might resolve in weeks to months.
-
Respondent changed position
Respondent told claimant he must return to the office and perform full duties, reversing earlier willingness to consider adjustments.
-
Dismissal meeting
Meeting chaired by external HR consultant Jason Govindji-Bruce; claimant accompanied by union rep.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed on grounds of capability (ill health).
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal chaired by external HR consultant Ruth Seddon, who upheld the dismissal.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for capability reasons, whether the respondent discriminated against him because of something arising from his disability, and whether the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal unanimously found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, discriminated against because of something arising from his disability, and that the respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Key reasons included:
- The respondent did not genuinely consult with the claimant about his return to work.
- The respondent refused to allow home working despite medical recommendations.
- The respondent relied on outdated medical information and did not seek an up-to-date report.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £807.70
- Compensatory award: reduced by 20% (Polkey reduction) for the chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway.
- Total damages: £27,664.56
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must genuinely consult with employees on long-term sick leave before dismissing for capability.
- Refusing a reasonable request to work from home, supported by medical evidence, can amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
- Relying on outdated medical reports when an updated one is offered is a sign of an unfair process.
- A Polkey reduction may apply if the tribunal finds there was a chance the employee would have been dismissed even with a fair process.
A stroke, a request to work from home, and a dismissal
The claimant, a Lettings Manager with three years' service, suffered a stroke in August 2020. He also had diabetes-related impairments. His GP and an occupational therapist recommended a phased return to work from home, with no face-to-face contact due to COVID-19 shielding. The employer, Phillip Ellis Properties Limited, initially seemed open to adjustments but then changed course, insisting the claimant return to the office and perform full duties. In February 2021, he was dismissed on capability grounds.
What went wrong for the employer
The tribunal found that the employer failed to carry out a proper consultation. It did not consider the up-to-date medical evidence, instead relying on a report that was several months old. The employer also refused the claimant's reasonable request to work from home, which would have been a reasonable adjustment. The dismissal was therefore both unfair and discriminatory.
Why this case matters
This case highlights the importance of genuine consultation and considering reasonable adjustments before dismissing an employee on long-term sick leave. Employers cannot simply insist on a return to full duties without exploring alternatives, especially when medical evidence supports a phased or home-based return. The 20% Polkey reduction reflects that even with a fair process, the claimant might still have been dismissed, but the core finding remains: the employer's actions fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
Similar cases
Dismissed while hospitalised with sickle cell crisis: procedural failings made it unfair
A pharmacist with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Whittington Health NHS Trust after being refused an extension to her notice period while hospitalised with a sickle cell crisis. The tribunal found indirect disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments, awarding £16,884.
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.
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.