Cases2200528/2024

Claimant v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust

19 August 2025Before Employment Judge FordeLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the claimant had chronic, persistent absences (146 out of 262 working days in one 12-month period), the respondent's sickness absence management process was reasonable and compassionate, he was repeatedly warned, and the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The tribunal found that extending employment, discounting disability-related absences, adjusting attendance targets, offering shorter shifts, and exploring redeployment further would not have been reasonable adjustments as there was no medical evidence these would improve attendance, and the claimant's absences were not work-related. The tribunal held there is no rule requiring employers to discount disability-related absences.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

The tribunal accepted that dismissing the claimant was unfavourable treatment because of absences arising from disability, but found the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of ensuring minimum staff attendance and safe service provision, given the chronic nature of absences, their substantial impact on the ward, and lack of improvement despite numerous adjustments.

Victimisationwithdrawn

Withdrawn by claimant at the start of the hearing and dismissed.

Facts

The claimant, a Junior Charge Nurse with nearly 18 years' service, was disabled due to Crohn's disease, anxiety and depression. Between May 2022 and August 2023 he had 15 absence episodes totalling 220 working days. In one 12-month period he was absent 146 out of 262 working days. Despite numerous adjustments including phased returns, reduced duties, flexible working, and temporary redeployment, his attendance did not improve. Occupational Health advised his absences were not work-related and redeployment would not improve attendance. He was dismissed for ill-health capability on 26 September 2023 after progressing through the respondent's sickness absence policy stages, with his appeal dismissed on 26 January 2024.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the claimant's chronic absences had a substantial impact on the paediatric ward, the respondent acted reasonably throughout the sickness absence process with compassion and support, the proposed reasonable adjustments would not have improved attendance and were not reasonable in the circumstances, and the dismissal was both within the band of reasonable responses and a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining minimum staffing levels and safe patient care.

Practical note

Employers can fairly dismiss long-serving disabled employees with chronic absence records where there is no medical evidence that adjustments would improve attendance, absences are not work-related, and the operational impact is substantial, even where the employer has been supportive throughout.

Legal authorities cited

Foley v Post Office [2000] ICR 1283T-Systems Ltd v Lewis EAT 0042/15Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe [2016] ICR 305Pnaiser v NHS England [2016] IRLR 170Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh [2018] IRLR 1090Gray v University of Portsmouth EAT 0242/20Health and Safety Executive v Cadman [2005] ICR 1546 CABray v Camden London Borough [2002] EAT 1162/01Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust v Dunsby [2005] UKEAT 0426_05_0112Project Management Institute v Latif UKEAT/0028/07O'Brien v Bolton St Catherine's Academy [2017] EWCA Civ 145York City Council v Grosset [2018] EWCA Civ 1105Post Office v JonesIceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.6Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.20-21Equality Act 2010 s.39Equality Act 2010 s.136Employment Rights Act 1996 s.94Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
2200528/2024
Decision date
19 August 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
6
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Junior Charge Nurse (Band 6)
Service
18 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister