Endometriosis as a Disability and Reasonable Adjustments – Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd (EAT, 2026)

The Employment Tribunal initially found that Ms Pal had been unfairly dismissed due to procedural flaws in the employer’s approach.

It criticised the use of a disciplinary-style process for what was essentially a capability issue. However, it made no award of compensation, applying a 100% Polkey reduction on the basis that the employer would have reached the same outcome through a fair process.

The Tribunal also found that endometriosis did not amount to a disability, primarily because the condition had not lasted 12 months at the time of dismissal. It further held that dismissal could be justified due to the employer’s performance expectations and business requirements.

The EAT disagreed and overturned key findings. It held that the Tribunal had failed to properly apply the legal test for disability and had made unsupported assumptions about how events would have unfolded.

The EAT found that:

• The Tribunal failed to properly assess the long-term and cyclical nature of endometriosis
• Medical evidence and risk of recurrence were not properly considered
• Short-term improvement following surgery does not remove disability status
• Comparisons with other individuals were irrelevant to the legal test

On unfair dismissal, the EAT held that dismissal for “not being ready for promotion” does not fit within capability relating to the employee’s current role. It may, depending on circumstances, fall under SOSR rather than capability.

The EAT also overturned the 100% Polkey reduction, finding the Tribunal had wrongly assumed the employer would have implemented and fairly applied an alternative process without evidential support.

The case was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration of disability discrimination and remedy.

What can employers learn from this?

This decision is a clear reminder that long-term health conditions do not need to be constant or predictable to attract protection under the Equality Act 2010. Conditions such as endometriosis, which can fluctuate in severity and respond temporarily to treatment, may still amount to a disability where the overall impact is substantial and long-term. Employers should therefore focus on the real-world functional effect of a condition, rather than assuming that periods of improvement or absence of symptoms remove legal protection.

In practice, this means employers should take a more structured and cautious approach when managing absence, performance, and progression decisions involving health conditions. Key considerations include:

• Endometriosis will usually qualify as a disability
  If it has a substantial and long-term impact on day-to-day activities, it is likely to be protected under the Equality Act 2010.
• Fluctuating conditions are still covered
  Protection applies even where symptoms vary in intensity or are not present every day.
• Treatment does not remove protection
  Improvement following surgery or medication does not necessarily mean the condition is no longer a disability, particularly where relapse is possible.
• Disability-related absence must be handled carefully
  Absence linked to a condition should not be treated in the same way as ordinary sickness absence when making performance or dismissal decisions.
• Occupational Health input is essential
  Employers should seek medical advice to understand the condition’s impact, prognosis, and appropriate adjustments.
• Reasonable adjustments should be considered early
  Adjustments such as flexible working, amended triggers, or phased returns may be necessary depending on the circumstances.
• Performance must relate to the current role
  Employees should be assessed against the requirements of their existing job, not future promotion expectations.
• “Up or out” models carry legal risk
  Strict progression frameworks may be problematic where they do not properly account for disability-related absence or adjusted working patterns.