Discrimination in Health and Social Care: Disabled Worker Awarded £233K

Published : July 17, 2025

In Mrs Kelly Ruddock v Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust and Others, a medical secretary has been awarded over £230,000 after the employment tribunal learned she faced multiple counts of disabled discrimination in health and social care. She was forced into a role that didn’t accommodate her disabilities and left her with no choice but to resign.

Below, we examine the facts of the case and the employment tribunal’s judgment. We then discuss examples of disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, sometimes referred to as the “Disability Act,” and what you can do if you’ve experienced something similar.

If you have any questions about this case or believe your employment rights have been breached, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment specialists, we can provide the answers you’re looking for and ensure you reach an optimal outcome. All you have to do to get started is:

The Facts in Mrs Kelly Ruddock v Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust and Others

Discrimination in Health and Social Care Background

Mrs Kelly Ruddock (“the Claimant”) worked as a senior clinical support administrator for Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust (“the Respondent”) from 28 July 2017. She is disabled, suffering from multiple conditions, including central sensitisation, systemic lupus erythematosus, fibromyalgia, PTSD, and stress.

When the Claimant initially commenced her employment, she rarely worked face-to-face with patients or their families. Many patients were “extremely vulnerable” with mental health conditions and were unable to control their actions. This left some prone to attacking the staff. The Claimant’s working arrangement, therefore, suited her, particularly because she felt unable to defend herself due to previous trauma.

Unfortunately, in May 2018, the Claimant learned that her grandson had leukaemia. She subsequently took a period of carer’s leave before entering into a flexible working arrangement with her manager. However, her manager changed in August that year, which, following miscommunication, led to a disciplinary investigation.

Feeling unfairly targeted, the Claimant raised a grievance. Yet, when her grievance meeting came around on 30 April 2019, rather than simply discussing her complaints, the Respondent forced her to alter her flexible working arrangement.

This led the Claimant to raise a second grievance. The outcome, eventually delivered on 3 December 2020, outlined that the grievance hadn’t been upheld but apologised for what had happened during the earlier grievance meeting. While this wasn’t the result the Claimant was hoping for, she chose not to appeal.

Role Change and Redeployment Request Following Administrative Review

On 7 June 2021, the Respondent undertook an administrative review. The Claimant learned that her role would change to “senior ward administrator,” which was predominantly ward-based. Knowing of her past trauma and concerns around patients, this was an understandably distressing revelation and one that raised questions of discrimination in health and social care.

The Claimant subsequently requested a one-on-one meeting, which took place on 1 July. At such time, she outlined her concerns regarding “ward working” and asked to be transferred into a new role, senior crisis pathway administrator, which comprised significantly less face-to-face work.

On 16 July, the Claimant was then referred to Occupational Health (OH) and interviewed for the new role. Unfortunately, despite meeting the essential criteria for the post and requiring redeployment, as her previous role was no longer suitable, another candidate, who was simply seeking promotion, was selected.

During proceedings, the Respondent asserted that redeployments couldn’t be prioritised due to an agreement with the Trade Unions requiring competitive interviews for all new roles arising from the review, even though its own redeployment policy should have taken precedence.

As a result, the Claimant remained a senior ward administrator. This was despite the eventual OH report, received on 29 July, which acknowledged that her concerns surrounding “ward working” were “valid based on the conditions she has and the symptoms she describes as experiencing.”

Claimant Resigns Following Disabled Discrimination in Health and Social Care

Over the coming months, the relationship between the Claimant and Respondent deteriorated, as the Respondent unreasonably delayed in handling a grievance the Claimant had raised in May. To exacerbate matters, following an investigation, the grievance outcome pointed to possible disciplinary action against the Claimant due to untrue allegations she never made.

Believing she couldn’t afford to wait for her dismissal, the Claimant tendered her resignation with immediate effect on 22 September. However, due to payroll issues, her employment only ceased on 26 September.

It was only after the Claimant resigned that the Respondent acknowledged that she could have continued in her previous working arrangement, away from the ward. This, though, was never communicated to her.

Following her resignation, the Claimant initiated Acas early conciliation before raising claims to the employment tribunal. Among them, she claimed unfair dismissal and disability discrimination at work.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the definition of discrimination in health and social care, or, more specifically, disabled discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, was addressed. The tribunal outlined that disability discrimination at work arises when an individual is treated unfairly because of their disability. 

This includes direct discrimination, where a person is treated less favourably due to their disability, and indirect discrimination, where a policy or practice puts disabled people at a disadvantage. It also covers unfavourable treatment arising from something linked to a disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments to remove barriers, and harassment or victimisation related to disability. All of these are unlawful unless objectively justified.

Tribunal Findings on Disability Discrimination in Health and Social Care

In this case, the tribunal first looked at her claim of discrimination arising from disability. Here, it found she’d faced unfavourable treatment since she was moved into a ward-based role without any accommodations, which was unsuitable given her conditions. Since this put her at a disadvantage, and said disadvantage arose due to her disabilities, this claim was upheld.

The tribunal then addressed her claim regarding a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Again, this concerned the fact that the Respondent was requiring the Claimant to undertake unsuitable ward-based work. Although the Respondent later acknowledged it would have allowed her to continue working away from the ward, this was never communicated to her during her employment. As such, since adjustments like enabling the above or redeploying her into a more suitable position weren’t actioned, this claim also succeeded.

Unfair Dismissal and Tribunal Outcome

Finally, the tribunal analysed the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. Here, she raised various incidents she alleged breached the implied term of trust and confidence entitling her to resign. Among them was the unreasonable delay concerning her final grievance and the Respondent’s failure to offer her a non-ward-based role, the latter of which the tribunal considered a fundamental breach of contract. With this in mind, the tribunal held that the Claimant was entitled to resign and upheld her unfair dismissal claim.

All other claims were dismissed, but since the Claimant succeeded on the above, a remedy hearing followed. She was subsequently awarded £232,903.34, comprising a basic and compensatory award for unfair dismissal, as well as compensation for disability discrimination.

Disability Discrimination at Work: Common Examples and Next Steps

Following the case of disability discrimination in health and social care, others in similar situations may have questions about their rights and what they can do next. To provide a better understanding, below are some examples of disability discrimination and the steps those affected can take.

The Equality Act 2010, sometimes labelled the “Disability Act,” protects individuals from unfair treatment due to a disability. This protection applies in various settings, including workplaces, healthcare facilities, education, and more.

Some common examples of disability discrimination in employment include:

  • Being denied reasonable adjustments, including flexible working or assistive equipment
  • Being forced into an unsuitable role, without consideration for one’s condition
  • Policies that place disabled employees at a disadvantage, such as rigid hours or competitive interviews taking precedence over redeployments
  • Disciplinary action being taken against someone for disability-related absences
  • Verbal harassment, bullying, or insensitive remarks linked to one’s disability

Understandably, disability discrimination can take many forms, so the examples above are by no means exhaustive. If an individual experiences any form of discrimination, various measures can be taken to address the issue. Acting swiftly is crucial, though.

Depending on the severity of the situation, internal remedies like an informal chat or grievance procedure may be the answer. However, this isn’t always the case, and steps like Acas early conciliation or employment tribunal proceedings may sometimes be required.

Get Help With Redmans

At Redmans Solicitors, we specialise in employment law and can assess your situation quickly and clearly. We’ll let you know where you stand and guide you through your next steps. Whatever the case, we’re here to help. So, if you want expert legal advice today, simply:

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