Discrimination Arising from Disability: Masseuse Wins £26k Following Successful Tribunal Claim

Published : April 20, 2026

Butunoi v Turner Health Group Ltd is a useful illustration of how “discrimination arising from disability” operates in practice. The case highlights the risk to employers of prioritising operational convenience over medical recommendations. This is particularly relevant when an employee’s ability to work is affected by a disability.

If you believe you’ve faced disability discrimination at work, contact Redmans Solicitors. As employment experts, we can analyse your circumstances, answer your queries, and provide specialist advice. We can assess your eligibility to make a claim and guide those eligible through the legal process.

To learn more about how we can help you, simply:

The Facts of Butunoi v Turner Health Group Ltd

Discrimination Arising from Disability Case Background

The Claimant, Miss Butunoi, worked as a soft tissue therapist for the Respondent, the Nurture Chiropractic Clinic, from November 2020. Prior to commencing her employment, she was diagnosed with endometriosis and also experienced anxiety. These conditions were openly discussed at the outset of her employment and had previously been managed by the Claimant. 

Unfortunately, in May 2021, the Claimant sustained a wrist injury. Although she continued working, this later led to ongoing wrist problems. During this period, she explored additional work, as her hours hadn’t increased as she’d hoped. Yet, when she began working her additional role, it only worsened her wrist pain. And on 5 June 2022, she informed the Respondent that she’d attended urgent care and was advised not to work. 

The First Ill Health Review Takes Place

An ill health review meeting took place on 24 June. The Claimant provided a GP fit note stating that she was unfit for work until 13 July. During this meeting, it was noted that she’d been working elsewhere during this time but that she’d taken on fewer clients. The Claimant also requested 10-minute breaks between massages, but the Respondent refused, reasoning that shifts were typically only four to five hours long. 

Read More: NHS Trust Settles Dispute with Nurse, Disciplined for Misgendering Trans Woman

On 30 June, the Respondent confirmed in writing that the Claimant’s shifts could be reduced. It reiterated, though, that it was “not operationally practical” to provide breaks within shifts. However, by 4 July, the Claimant explained that she was unable to return to work because she was required to perform eight to nine consecutive massages without breaks. 

The Claimant’s health then deteriorated further, and on 27 July, she consulted her GP regarding her mental health. At such time, she was prescribed sertraline, reportedly experiencing anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts.

Claimant Dismissed Leading to Discrimination Arising from Disability Claim

On 4 August, the Claimant raised a formal grievance before a further ill-health review took place four days later. In a letter dated 11 August, the Respondent then acknowledged the Claimant’s health struggles. Despite this, it noted its limitations in providing adjustments due to its size. It also indicated that termination might be considered if she couldn’t return to work by the end of August. 

On 25 August, the Claimant then submitted a fit note stating her readiness to return, provided the adjustments were made. The following day, however, the Respondent again stated that it was unable to accommodate the GP’s recommendation. 

Following further discussion without agreement, the Claimant’s employment eventually terminated with effect from 4 November. The Respondent stated that it had no confidence in the Claimant’s ability to attend work regularly in the foreseeable future. While a grievance meeting took place on 13 October, followed by a subsequent appeal, both proved unsuccessful. 

The Tribunal’s Findings 

The tribunal found that the Claimant had been dismissed due to her absence and the uncertainty of when she would return. It considered that there were less discriminatory alternatives that the Respondent didn’t consider (i.e., allowing the Claimant to work afternoon shifts with the breaks incorporated). Ultimately, it found that the dismissal wasn’t a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and the Claimant was successful in bringing a claim for discrimination arising from disability.  

Discrimination Arising from Disability: The Law 

A claim for discrimination arising from disability is one of the key protections for disabled employees. An employer is said to have discriminated against a disabled person under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 if: 

  1. The employer treats the employee unfavourably,  
  2. That unfavourable treatment is because of something arising in consequence of that employee’s disability, and  
  3. The employer is unable to show that the treatment was a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.  

Breaking This Down

Notably, unfavourable treatment can be broad in scope. It can mean dismissal, but could also include disciplinary action or a withdrawal of opportunities.

Furthermore, “something arising from disability” means a consequence or effect of a person’s disability, rather than the disability itself. It covers the practical impacts that a disability can have on a person’s day-to-day functioning, particularly at work. Importantly, it doesn’t require the employer to have treated the employee badly because they are disabled, but because of one of these consequences.

Typical examples include sickness absence due to a condition, fatigue, or medication side effects. It can also include mental health symptoms like difficulty concentrating, anxiety, or periods of low mood. Another common example is where an employer takes action based on performance issues that are actually caused by disability-related symptoms. In each case, the key question is whether the reason for the employer’s treatment is connected to the effects of the disability.

Finally, the tribunal will consider whether the actions were a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. In cases of discrimination arising from disability, this balancing exercise is central to determining whether the employer’s actions can be justified. In practical terms, this means the tribunal carries out a careful balancing exercise. On the one hand, it considers the employer’s stated aims, such as maintaining efficient service delivery, ensuring reliable staffing, or managing business operations. On the other hand, it examines the impact of the employer’s decision on the disabled employee. The key question is whether the employer’s response goes beyond what is reasonably necessary to achieve its aim. The employer must show that it was a sensible and appropriate response in the circumstances, and that less discriminatory alternatives were not reasonably available.

Practical Implications  

Discrimination arising from disability is an area where liability does not usually arise from obvious or intentional discrimination, but from management decisions that aren’t properly tested against disability-related impacts. For HR professionals and managers, the key risk is treating disability-related absence, reduced capacity, or the need for adjustments as a performance or operational issue without adequately considering legal obligations. 

In practice, employers should ensure that any decision affecting a disabled employee is supported by a clear audit trail showing how the decision was reached. Where occupational health or GP reports suggest changes such as reduced hours or additional breaks, employers should not reject these automatically. Instead, they should consider whether the adjustment can reasonably be implemented or whether alternative working arrangements could achieve the same business aim with less disadvantage to the employee. 

Read More: The Bay Tree Welshpool Ordered to Pay £12k Following Unfair Redundancy

From an employee perspective, it’s helpful to understand that the protection under “discrimination arising from disability” isn’t limited to being formally recognised as “disabled” in everyday terms. It covers a wide range of conditions that have a substantial and long-term impact on normal day-to-day activities. Employees should therefore feel able to raise health conditions early, provide medical evidence where available, and clearly communicate when difficulties at work are linked to their condition. 

Employees should also document adjustment requests and record employers’ responses, particularly when adjustments are refused or alternative arrangements are offered. This can be important evidence if a dispute arises later. 

Our Final Thoughts 

Ultimately, the legal framework encourages a collaborative approach. Employers are expected to actively explore workable adjustments rather than defaulting to dismissal or rigid enforcement of working practices, while employees are encouraged to communicate needs clearly so that meaningful solutions can be considered. The decision in Butunoi v Turner Health Group Ltd serves as a reminder that tribunals will scrutinise not just the outcome of an employer’s decision, but the quality of the reasoning process behind it, particularly where disability and workplace adjustments are concerned. 

If you believe you’ve faced disability discrimination or have any other concerns, contact Redmans Solicitors. As employment specialists, we can provide answers and guide you forward. It only takes a moment to find out more about how we can help you, simply:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.