Charity Fined Over £150,000 for Disability Discrimination in Unfair Dismissal Case
A disability support charity has been compelled to pay more than £150,000 in compensation to a former employee after an employment tribunal found it guilty of discriminating against him due to his disabilities. Shared Lives South West was ordered to pay £152,745.41 to William Drysdale-Wood, who suffers from long Covid and Crohn's disease, following his unfair dismissal.
Background of the Case and Medical Conditions
William Drysdale-Wood, a resident of Newquay in Cornwall, had been employed as a Shared Lives coordinator since September 2015. His role involved recruiting, training, and managing carers who support individuals in their own homes. In 2020, he shielded during the pandemic because he was on immunosuppressant medication for Crohn's disease and experienced severe reactions to two Covid vaccines.
Mr Drysdale-Wood contracted Covid-19 in January 2022 and was later diagnosed with long Covid and chronic fatigue syndrome (ME) in September 2022. Medical advice led him to take an extended absence from work from November 2022 to January 2023. By February 2023, he was officially recognized as a disabled person due to long Covid, a condition affecting approximately 1.8% of the UK population with symptoms like fatigue, brain fog, breathlessness, and pain.
Workplace Accommodations and Phased Return
Upon his return to work, Mr Drysdale-Wood required specific accommodations, including 'micro-breaks' and Tai Chi classes, as recommended by an occupational health report in March. His workload was measured in 'units of support,' and by June 2023, he managed around 42 units compared to the full-time caseload of 55 units considered by Shared Lives South West.
An occupational health report in August noted he had been absent for 60 days in the previous 12 months, accounting for nearly 17% of the year. Despite this, he engaged in a phased return and discussed his workload with team leader Edward Bunce-Philips.
Capability Meetings and Sudden Dismissal
On September 6, 2023, Mr Drysdale-Wood attended a capability meeting to address his workload and potential future absences. He was informed there was a 'potential' need to increase his workload, but he disagreed with the suggestion that he could handle a full-time caseload. A second meeting followed on September 14, where the company indicated it could tolerate two to three days of absence over the next three months.
However, he was dismissed the very next day via email, citing 'ill-health' as the reason. Laura Maker, the people and culture leader at Shared Lives South West, stated there was 'a high probability of continued unsustainable levels of absence' and that the charity could no longer support his reduced workload. Mr Drysdale-Wood filed a grievance, but it was not upheld.
Tribunal Findings and Judicial Commentary
Employment Judge Edmund Beever criticized the charity's handling of the case, noting the 'remarkably brief' timeline of the capability process. He emphasized that Mr Drysdale-Wood was not given adequate opportunity to demonstrate improvement in his health or to manage his work within reasonable expectations.
The judge found that while the charity anticipated a potential increase in workload, it was only a 'potential' need, and Mr Drysdale-Wood had acknowledged he might take on additional work if necessary. Judge Beever stated that less discriminatory means could have been employed, such as allowing the small degree of absence proposed in the capability meeting, rather than resorting to dismissal.
The tribunal recognized that the dismissal had a 'devastating' impact on Mr Drysdale-Wood's health and his relationship with his children, contributing to a deterioration in his condition and increasing his need for care from his wife. He successfully sued for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal, though other claims were dismissed.
Charity's Response and Future Implications
In a statement, Shared Lives South West said, 'While we stand by the decisions taken at the time, we acknowledge that the Tribunal has found that we did not get everything right in how we managed this case. We are reviewing the full judgment carefully and will use it to help us make improvements in practices, particularly around supporting staff with health conditions and ensuring our processes are robust, fair, and compassionate.'
This case highlights the legal obligations of employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled employees and the severe consequences of failing to do so. It serves as a reminder for organizations to implement fair and compassionate processes when managing staff with health conditions.
