Ms M Ottewill v Iceland Foods Limited — 2025

The claimant was employed by Iceland Foods Limited from July 2007 until her dismissal on 12 July 2023. The respondent conceded that she was disabled at all relevant times by epilepsy, pernicious anaemia, anxiety and depression. She had been continuously absent from work from 15 September 2021 until dismissal, after earlier lengthy periods of sickness absence, and the tribunal accepted evidence that her supervisor role was being covered by staff from other stores, creating operational pressures.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the respondent had a potentially fair reason, namely capability/ill health. It found that the respondent consulted the claimant through attendance management meetings, obtained three occupational health reports, and was sufficiently informed of the medical position. Although some employers might have waited for further CBT and others might have dismissed earlier, the tribunal concluded that dismissal after 22 months' absence, with no clear return date and no apparent adjustment enabling a return in July 2023, was within the range of reasonable responses.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of sickness absence arising from disability. It found the respondent's aim of maintaining its workforce at work was legitimate and that dismissal was proportionate in the circumstances, including the length of absence, operational pressures, previous unsuccessful CBT or talking therapies, uncertainty about further CBT, and the absence of evidence that redeployment or other adjustments would have enabled a return to work.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found no established PCP requiring a minimum level of attendance and, in any event, that waiting for the further CBT course to work was not a reasonable adjustment in the circumstances. The direct disability discrimination claim also failed because there was no evidence that a hypothetical comparator with equivalent sickness absence and prognosis, but without the claimant's disabilities, would have been treated more favourably.