TUPE and Indirect Discrimination in Anne & Others v Great Ormond Street Hospital
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read MoreIn the recent case of McAllister -v- Commissioners of HMRC, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that dismissal for poor attendance arising from disability was objectively justified and therefore not discriminatory.
28 February 2023
Case Study
Mr McAllister commenced employment with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in May 2011. He was employed in an administrative role. Mr McAllister suffered from anxiety and depression and had a high level of sickness absence because of these conditions. Following an absence management procedure, Mr McAllister was dismissed in December 2018, following which he brought employment tribunal claims for discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to his dismissal.
In order to bring a successful claim under section 15 of the Equality Act, an employee must show that the employer has treated them “unfavourably” because of “something arising in consequence of the employee’s disability”. The employer has a defence to any such claim if the treatment can be objectively justified, i.e., if they can show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Case Study
The tribunal found that Mr McAllister had been dismissed as a result of his absence records as a consequence of his disability. However, the dismissal was objectively justified because the employer was able to show that its decision to dismiss for long-term sickness absence was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim – that being to maintain a fair, effective and transparent sickness management regime, and the efficient use of resources.
Mr McAllister appealed this decision to the EAT who agreed with the initial judgment stating that the tribunal had made a permissible finding. It was found that the aim of ensuring that staff were capable of meeting attendance expectations was legitimate and supported by a genuine need on the part of HMRC to ensure that Mr McAllister’s absences did not impact on productivity and staff morale.
In reaching its decision, the EAT noted that HMRC had made all possible reasonable adjustments and had balanced the reasonable needs of the employer against the discriminatory effect on Mr McAllister.
It is certainly not uncommon for a claim of disability discrimination to arise out of absence management processes such as dismissal for long-term sickness or persistent absence. Where an employer has provided the employee with considerable support over a long period, made any reasonable adjustments necessary and followed a reasonable process such as in this case, there is a good chance that a dismissal can be objectively justified. However, it is important to bear in mind that every case turns on its individual facts and employers should tread extremely carefully and seek advice when handling these sorts of cases.
Contact Us
If you require any further information on anything included in this case study, or any employment issue you may be facing, please do not hesitate to contact the Employment team on 01332 226 155 or fill in the form below.
Related Services
Knowledge
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read MoreEAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read MoreEAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read MoreTuesday
25
March
Join us for breakfast and networking, followed by our expert speaker presentation, a roundtable discussion, and a Q&A session.
Book your placeWednesday
26
March
Employment law update on family leave rights for 2026. Practical guidance, new entitlements and live Q&A for employers.
Book your placeET finds indirect sex discrimination where trans woman used female changing rooms, highlighting employer obligations and staff rights.
Read MoreET dismisses claims over trans women using female toilets, clarifying employer duties and best practice for workplace facilities.
Read MoreET rules on non-binary staff, workplace records, and harassment, clarifying protections under the Equality Act.
Read MoreEmployment Tribunal examines gender critical beliefs, trans rights, and single-sex spaces in landmark Peggie v Fife Health Board case.
Read MoreWednesday
11
March
Join us on 11 March 2026 for our Employment Law Seminar: key changes, tribunal cases, and expert insights for HR professionals.
Book your placeDownload our Employment Rights Act Resource Pack to navigate key 2025–2027 employment law changes with expert guidance and practical tools.
Read moreEmployee falls asleep at work and is unfairly dismissed; explore lessons for employers on investigations, mitigation, and proportionality.
Read MoreScroll to next section
Scroll back to the top


On Monday 29 September, Flint Bishop successfully completed the acquisition of the entire business of Lupton Fawcett LLP. You have been forwarded to the page most relevant to your visit.
Please feel free to explore our website and learn more about our legal services and professionals, including those who have recently joined us from Lupton Fawcett.
