Sickness absences and the risk of discrimination claims

Published: November 20 2025

An Employment Tribunal has recently found in favour of a teacher, in a claim for disability discrimination and awarded compensation of £137,000.

In the case of Miss Annika Fay Robinson v Middlesex Learning Trust, the Employment Tribunal (ET) found in favour of the claimant on several grounds under the Equality Act 2010, including discrimination arising from disability, and disability related harassment.

In this article, we look at the background to the case and highlight some key takeaways.

Case background

Miss Robinson worked at Southgate School in North London, part of the Middlesex Learning Trust (“the Trust”) as a Design Technology teacher on a fixed-term contract from September 2020 to August 2021. She suffered from back pain and migraines, which were accepted by the Tribunal as qualifying disabilities under the Equality Act 2010.

Miss Robinson experienced extended periods of absence due to her health conditions, including spinal surgery. Several incidents formed the basis of her claims, including:

• Miss Robinson’s application to the Upper Pay Range (UPR) was rejected in November 2020. She argued that her sickness absence prevented her from obtaining necessary documentation.
• In January 2021, the Trust decided not to renew Miss Robinson’s contract, citing curriculum changes. The Tribunal found that her absence due to her disability prevented her from completing a teaching observation that would likely have led to a permanent role. Her fixed-term status made her the only candidate for termination during staffing reviews.
• Miss Robinson alleged that the Trust failed to properly notify her of the non-renewal of her contract. Communications were sent to her work email and an outdated home address, despite her being on long-term sick leave. She claimed she only became aware of the decision in March 2021.
• Miss Robinson requested an Occupational Health referral for her migraines in June 2021. The Trust refused, citing cost and the proximity to the end of her contract.
• A Stage 1 absence management meeting was held in June 2021 while Miss Robinson was still on sick leave. Six people attended the meeting, which Robinson found intimidating. Comments made during the meeting implied she had “let down” colleagues and students by her absence and questioned the timing of her return to work.

Case decision

Discrimination Arising from Disability

The Tribunal found that:

• The non-renewal of Miss Robinson’s contract was unfavourable treatment arising from her disability-related absence.
• The failure to notify her properly of the contract termination constituted unfavourable treatment, as it would have been considered reasonable to confirm the best method of contact while the Claimant was off sick.
• The refusal to make an Occupational Health referral for her migraines was discriminatory.

However, the Tribunal dismissed her claims relating to:

• The UPR application, finding no link between her absence and the rejection and therefore found that this was not discriminatory.
• A claim for reasonable adjustments.

Harassment related to disability

The Tribunal also upheld Miss Robinson’s harassment claims in relation to:

• The presence of six attendees at the June 2021 meeting without prior notice.
• A comment made by the Deputy Head that Miss Robinson had “let [her] colleagues down and [her] students down.”
• A remark by the Headteacher suggesting cynicism about the timing of Miss Robinson’s return to work in relation to her sick pay.

These actions were found to have created a hostile and degrading environment, and violated Miss Robinson’s dignity, such to amount to harassment.

Some claims were initially presented out of the applicable time limits but were allowed to proceed as the Tribunal found it just and equitable to extend the time limit. Miss Robinson’s health and the cumulative nature of the treatment she received were key factors in this decision.

Remedy

The Tribunal ordered the following remedies:

• The Trust must implement disability awareness training for its management staff within 12 months and provide a factual reference.
• Miss Robinson was awarded £137,112 in compensation, covering the period from her dismissal on 31 August 2021 to 1 September 2023.

Key takeaways for employers

Although this case does not establish any new legal principles, it is useful for highlighting the importance of:

• Recognising and accommodating disability-related absences.
• Employers must take reasonable steps to ensure that employees on sick leave receive important communications such as contract decisions through accessible and up-to-date channels.
• Comments that undermine or shame employees for disability-related absence, even if unintended, can amount to harassment and violate dignity. Any comments should be carefully considered.
• Decisions affecting employment status must be based on objective criteria and not assumptions about disability or its impact on performance.

Employers must ensure that absence management procedures are applied fairly and with due regard to the Equality Act 2010. As this case demonstrates, failure to do so can result in significant legal and financial consequences.

Further support

The Brachers Education team and Kent HR Consultants are on hand to provide guidance and practical HR assistance as and when you need us, in a way that suits your business. For more in-depth guidance or support, get in touch with our experienced team of HR professionals who can guide you and assist you.

To keep up to date with employment law changes, sign up to receive regular business updates along with industry specific updates for the healthcare and education industries from our Employment Law Partners Brachers.