Mrs S Endsor v University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (“the third respondent” or “R3”) — 2026

Mrs Endsor's unfair dismissal claim succeeded. Her claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed. She had worked as a Referral to Treatment Validator since February 2015 and was dismissed on capability grounds in October 2024 after seventeen months of absence. The respondent conceded disability arising from Type 1 diabetes, fibromyalgia, Hashimoto's disease and pernicious anaemia. The tribunal found that it should have known of the disabling impairment underlying her absence from Occupational Health's advice in April 2024, although pernicious anaemia was not diagnosed until October.

The respondent had a genuine belief, supported by reasonable grounds, that ill health was the reason for dismissal. It had supported and consulted Mrs Endsor during her absence and reasonably postponed the June 2024 final review to allow treatment to take effect. However, it relied on Dr Klein's October report as establishing that she could not work in any capacity. That report addressed diagnosis and prognosis without assessing a phased return, adjustments or alternative work. Mrs Endsor proposed returning after her fit note expired in mid-November, working from home and starting with refresher training. The tribunal found it unreasonable to reject that proposal without further medical advice or exploring alternative employment, contrary to the policy requirement to exhaust other options before dismissal.

The dismissal was also procedurally unfair. Mrs Endsor appealed on 1 November 2024, but the respondent did not offer an appeal hearing until August 2025. That delay denied her a timely opportunity to present further evidence about her recovery. By then she had secured another job and brought proceedings, and the tribunal found it reasonable for her to decline the hearing. Responsibility for progressing the appeal rested with the respondent.

The discrimination arising from disability claim failed despite the finding that the absence arose from disability. Failures to obtain further medical evidence, consider alternative roles and arrange a timely appeal amounted to unfavourable treatment, but the tribunal found that they were not caused by the absence itself. They arose from the respondent's assessment of fitness for work and, for the appeal, poor management and administrative failure. The respondent had not disregarded Mrs Endsor or Dr Klein's report. Its failure to follow Occupational Health's advice about absence recording and triggers did not establish unfavourable treatment under the policy; alternatively, it arose from the policy's terms rather than her absence.

The reasonable adjustments claim concerned the attendance policy and the refusal to extend sick pay. The tribunal found no substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled employees. The attendance policy assessed individual circumstances, had no significant fixed trigger points and could be applied flexibly, as shown by the postponed final review. The failure to exhaust alternatives concerned how the policy was applied. Reductions in sick pay would also disadvantage non-disabled employees, and extensions were discretionary under criteria that applied to both groups. The tribunal found no exceptional circumstances requiring an extension and no failure to make adjustments that prevented a return to work.