Finance Director with Cancer Resigns After Facing Harassment Related to Disability

In Mr L Ralfs v The Arbib Education Trust, a finance director has succeeded with his constructive dismissal, victimisation, unfavourable treatment and harassment related to disability claims. After taking an extended period of sick leave following a cancer relapse, he was denied a pay rise and subjected to an inadequate appeals process, among other things.

Read on to find out exactly what happened and how the employment tribunal came to its decision. As one of the main issues in the case, we will discuss how to identify disability harassment at work and the steps individuals can take if their rights are breached.

If you’ve faced disability harassment in the workplace and want specialist legal assistance, Redmans Solicitors are here to help. Our team of employment experts can analyse your case, discuss your options and assess your eligibility to claim compensation.

It only takes a moment to discover how we can help you, simply:

• Give us a call on 020 3397 3603
• Request a callback via our online form

The Facts in Mr L Ralfs v The Arbib Education Trust

Background to Claims Including Harassment Related to Disability

Mr L Ralfs (“the Claimant”) had previously worked for The Arbib Education Trust (“the Respondent”) before becoming its “Finance and IT Director” in 2021. Owing to a six-month notice period with his former employer, however, he wasn’t due to start this role until 1 February 2022. He accepted a £87,500 salary and was entitled to an annual pay review “in accordance with the Trust’s Pay Policy.”

Unfortunately, in what was no doubt a profoundly difficult development for the Claimant and his family, he was diagnosed on 14 February 2022 with a relapse of Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (a form of blood cancer). Two days later, he then informed Mr Rhodri Bryant, Executive Principal, and Ms Sarah Casemore, HR Director, of his diagnosis.

Dispute Over Enhanced Sick Pay and Reporting Requirements

At the employment tribunal hearing, sick pay was one of the central issues. The dispute turned on whether Mr Bryant had offered enhanced sick pay in return for the Claimant working when able, as the Claimant argued, or whether it had been awarded regardless of his ability to work, as the Respondent maintained.

Initially, the Claimant spoke with Mr Bryant about how, in the past, he’d sometimes been able to work during chemotherapy. He also explained how he’d found it beneficial for his mental health. As the tribunal recognised, the Respondent was under significant pressure at the time and welcomed any support the Claimant could provide, without fully considering how this might be perceived or the wider implications.

At first, the arrangement rested on goodwill, with flexibility over when the Claimant could work and nothing formally agreed. However, from the Claimant’s perspective, the Respondent’s attitude changed and became clear on 14 March.

Read More: Lab Assistant Awarded £70K in Disability Discrimination Claim After Being Dismissed for Taking Sick Leave

During a WhatsApp exchange, Mr Bryant said, “WhatsApp me each day to tell me if you are working or not…and then perhaps send an email each week to firm up the hours you worked that week.” This left the Claimant feeling “very upset.” Not only was this level of reporting at odds with him working only when fit, but it also felt like unnecessary oversight for such a senior member of staff.

The dispute over sick pay then came to a head on 29 March, when the Respondent wrote confirming his arrangements. He was told he would receive full pay until 3 April, half pay until 3 August, and no pay thereafter. The letter also explained that if he were to fall ill again in the second year of employment, his entitlement would be reduced depending on when that illness began.

Pay Rise Refusal and the “New in Role” Issue

Some months later, on 28 November, the Claimant was informed that he wouldn’t be receiving a pay rise. The letter he received appeared untailored to his circumstances and highlighted points irrelevant to his employment. Within it, the Respondent explained that the decision had been made because he “was still new in role.”

Notably, though, under the Respondent’s pay policy, “new in role” is defined as commencing employment after 1 March. However, the Claimant had started on 1 February, meaning he didn’t meet this definition.

During proceedings, the tribunal therefore requested Ms Casemore to explain the Respondent’s decision. She clarified that the Claimant’s role differs from others, as it’s paid on a “spot salary” rather than a scale. She further explained that “new in role” in the letter didn’t correspond to the policy definition but referred instead to being “a recently appointed senior member of staff.” With this in mind, while the terminology in the letter might have suggested otherwise, Ms Casemore asserted that the Respondent was justified in its decision, given the context of how these senior, spot-salaried roles were managed.

Grievance, Resignation and Disability Discrimination in the Workplace Claim

Following the pay rise decision, the Claimant submitted a formal appeal on 8 December. He argued that the decision constituted disability discrimination, as it related to the impacts of his condition.

While the appeal was technically upheld, the Respondent bypassed the formal policy. The decision was made hastily, and the letter informing the Claimant contained inaccuracies. It also failed to consider or share documentation that should have formed part of the appeal process, leading to the Claimant raising a formal grievance.

He did so on 4 January 2023, which resulted in an investigation by an external party. The grievance panel then issued its decision on 1 March, but it wasn’t in the Claimant’s favour. According to the panel, there was no evidence of discrimination regarding the pay appeal or the 29 March 2022 sick pay arrangements.

In the meantime, however, on 27 February, the Claimant resigned. He’d lost trust in the Respondent, believing its internal processes were flawed and unlikely to address his concerns. Following a period of Acas early conciliation, he brought his claims on 5 April. Among them, he claimed constructive unfair dismissal, unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability, harassment related to disability, and victimisation.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

During the proceedings, the employment tribunal quickly established that the Claimant’s condition satisfied the legal definition of disability. With this in mind, it considered each of his claims in turn.

Unfavourable Treatment Arising in Consequence of Disability

One of the main issues raised concerned the Claimant’s sick pay, specifically the letter dated 29 March 2022. In it, the Respondent informed the Claimant that, should he fall ill again in his second year of employment, his entitlement to further sick pay would be affected.

The tribunal found the letter confusing but, more importantly, directly tied to his disability. His condition had already required an extended absence and enhanced sick pay, and the tribunal concluded that linking future pay entitlements to this past illness created an unfair disadvantage. This was therefore held to be unfavourable treatment arising from disability.

Read More: Is it a Disability?: How Employment Tribunals Apply the Law in Discrimination Claims

A similar conclusion was reached regarding the incident on 28 November 2022, when the Claimant was told he would not receive a pay rise because he was “new in role.” While the Respondent provided some legitimate reasons, the tribunal ultimately found that the Claimant’s condition was material to the decision. This was highlighted when the Respondent admitted:

“There were other factors which fed into my decision, which were that he had only been at work for a few weeks before going off on sick leave…”

Among other considerations, these factors directly related to the Claimant’s disability. Accordingly, this was also treated as unfavourable treatment due to the same.

Harassment Related to Disability

The tribunal then considered the Claimant’s harassment claims, which focused on two key incidents involving Mr Bryant.

The first occurred on 12 December 2022, when Mr Bryant stated that the Claimant hadn’t acknowledged the impact his sickness had on colleagues and the business. The second took place on 6 February 2023, when Mr Bryant declined to confirm or deny the work the Claimant had claimed to have completed.

In both instances, the tribunal found the comments to be unfavourable and linked to the Claimant’s condition. It also concluded that the remarks created a hostile or offensive environment, satisfying the statutory test for harassment. As such, these claims were upheld.

Victimisation

Next, the tribunal examined the Claimant’s victimisation claims. The Respondent had failed to follow its formal pay appeal policy, and crucial documentation wasn’t provided before the grievance hearing. This hindered the Claimant from having his allegations of discrimination properly considered.

The tribunal concluded that these actions amounted to victimisation because they treated the Claimant unfavourably for raising discrimination complaints, and upheld these claims accordingly.

Constructive Dismissal and Final Ruling

Finally, the tribunal considered the constructive dismissal claim. When taken together, the Respondent’s conduct—including mishandling the pay appeal, issuing misleading communications, and failing to address discrimination complaints adequately—destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence. The Claimant’s resignation was therefore found to be a constructive dismissal.

Read More: Serial Job Applicant Who ‘Won’ £35K in Disability Claims Admits to Using AI for More Claims

Other allegations of victimisation, unfavourable treatment and harassment related to disability weren’t upheld. The tribunal concluded that, while some actions were insensitive or mishandled, they didn’t meet the statutory tests or were unrelated to the Claimant’s disability or protected acts.

Nonetheless, the Claimant succeeded in the key claims outlined above and now awaits a remedy following this decision.

What Are Examples of Disability Harassment at Work?

One of the central issues in the above case was harassment related to disability. Under UK law, disability harassment occurs when someone experiences unwanted behaviour connected to their disability that either violates their dignity or creates a humiliating or offensive environment for them.

Examples of disability harassment in the workplace could include:

• Mocking a colleague’s condition, such as joking about their mobility issues
• Questioning or undermining someone’s work because of their sickness absence or perceived limitations
• Excluding someone from team activities or opportunities due to their disability or assumptions about it

Importantly, though, harassment doesn’t need to be directed at an individual. If the behaviour creates a hostile environment affecting a disabled employee, it can still amount to unlawful harassment.

What Are My Rights at Work If I am Disabled?

Beyond protection from harassment, individuals with a legally recognised disability are also safeguarded against direct and indirect discrimination, as well as victimisation. Employers must comply with these legal obligations, ensuring that any reasonable adjustments are implemented to support disabled employees.

Such adjustments are designed to remove or reduce disadvantages arising from a disability and may include:

• Flexible working hours
• Accessible workspaces
• Adjusted workplace policies

If a disabled employee experiences any form of discrimination at work, it’s crucial they act promptly. While formal claims should be a last resort, there are strict time limits, so swift action is essential.

Employees can begin by addressing concerns informally or raising a formal grievance, in line with their employer’s policy. If this doesn’t lead to a satisfactory resolution, though, Acas early conciliation is usually the next step. Where all other avenues have been exhausted, an employment tribunal claim can be pursued, but specific eligibility criteria and time limits must be adhered to.

It’s important to remember that protection under UK law only applies once an employer knows, or reasonably ought to know, of a disability. Therefore, informing one’s employer of their condition is essential to ensure they gain protection.

Faced Discrimination or Harassment Related to Disability? Contact Us

If you’ve experienced disability discrimination in the workplace, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Redmans Solicitors are here to help. Following a brief consultation, we can answer your queries and discuss your possible next steps.

Begin your journey with us now by:

• Giving us a call on 020 3397 3603
• Filling out our online form with your details to request a callback