Legal Risk Report: Unfair Dismissal & Discrimination Advisory to a University

The following case was developed as part of my CIPD Level 7 and MA in HRM at the University of Westminster, where I applied HR theory and employment law to realistic business scenarios through simulated consultancy briefs. Each case reflects the approach I would take as an HR practitioner when presented with that situation.

Situation

A university client presented two cases involving former members of staff. One had been dismissed shortly after reporting a workplace injury and raising safety concerns.

The other was a disabled employee whose reasonable adjustment requests had been repeatedly ignored and who had been subjected to comments from colleagues about his hearing impairment. Both situations carried serious legal risk if they escalated to an employment tribunal.

Task

Presented with this scenario as part of a consultancy brief, my role was to produce a clear legal risk assessment for both cases and set out practical recommendations to reduce exposure before anything reached a formal claim.

Action

For the first case, I identified that the dismissal had no documented disciplinary process behind it and had occurred just two weeks after the employee raised a safety concern. Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, employees are protected from dismissal for raising health and safety concerns, and such a dismissal can be treated as automatically unfair regardless of length of service. The absence of any warnings, investigation, or documented process also pointed to a failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, which tribunals take into account when assessing fairness and can result in a 25% uplift in any compensation awarded. I recommended pursuing early conciliation through ACAS, reviewing the disciplinary procedures, and carrying out an immediate health and safety audit.

For the second case, I confirmed that the employee's hearing impairment was a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and that the university had breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments under Section 20, having acknowledged the requests and failed to act on them. I also flagged that the comments from colleagues constituted disability-related harassment under Section 26 of the Act, regardless of intent. I recommended putting a personalised support plan in place, addressing the comments through the disciplinary process, and creating a confidential channel for the employee to raise concerns going forward.

Result

The consultancy brief produced a formal legal risk assessment covering both cases, with prioritised actions designed to resolve each situation before it reached a tribunal, protect the University's reputation, and address the internal policy gaps that had allowed both situations to develop. The findings were communicated to the HR Manager through a formal advisory email, demonstrating the ability to translate complex employment law into clear, actionable business guidance.

Supporting Document — Advisory Email to HR Manager

Dear HR Manager,

My name is Renata, and I am an Employee Relations at BrightPath University. I have just been informed of circumstances involving our employees, Dr. Amelia and Remi. Both scenarios present problems that, if not addressed properly, could result in potential claims against the University. These problems include unfair dismissal, health and safety law breaches, negligence, disability discrimination, failure to make a reasonable adjustment, and harassment.

I will mention each problem by applying the law principles to the facts, identifying possible claims, and citing relevant case law to provide practical solutions to guarantee fairness for our employees and safeguard the University's reputation.

Concerns regarding Dr Amelia's dismissal, safety and negligence

Dr Amelia was recently promoted to lead a renewable energy research programme and was subsequently responsible for managing an advanced laboratory with complex equipment held by external funding. With the increased workload, she made several requests for hiring additional staff and getting proper training to manage the equipment, which was not addressed. Later on, she suffered a chemical burn while operating equipment, which she reported along with concerns about safety protocols. Two weeks after the report, she was dismissed without notice for "underperformance in research outputs" and  "failure to comply with safety regulations". 

Analysing the situation, Dr Amelia has been our employee for over two years and was likely dismissed for misconduct according to the Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 98 (1)(2), due to the failure to comply with safety regulations when handling the machine, which caused a chemical burn. Although it seems to be stated a reason by the University, she is protected under Section 94 of the ERA 1996, which states that employees have the right not to be unfairly dismissed by showing a valid reason for fair dismissal according to Section 98, that suggests a previous to her dismissal, conduct followed by an investigation, warnings, and an opportunity to improve. There is no evidence that this process was followed in Dr Amelia's case; leading to an possible unfair dismissal definition if she brings a claim within 3 months since her dismissal according to the ERA Act 1996.

To reinforce this perspective, you can look at the Sheikholeslami vs. The University of Edinburgh (2017) case law, in which the Court found the University had unfairly dismissed Sheikholeslami after failing to follow fair procedures or consider reasonable alternatives. Considering the absence of a documented disciplinary process and the close timing between Dr Amelia's injury report and her dismissal, the tribunal can decide that the decision was unreasonable and unfair under the law, requiring compensation in Amelia's favour.

Additionally, Dr Amelia can sue BrightPath for negligence about her injury in the lab. According to Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (Section 2), "is the duty of every employer to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees", followed by subsections (a) that mention "the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without health risks", and (b) "arrangements for ensuring, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances". Again, from a legal standpoint, negligence requires the existence of a duty of care (which BrightPath had), a breach of that duty (such as the lack of training or support), and the harm that ensued as a result. If a tribunal establishes that this kind of inaction was part of her injury and also impacted her performance, she might have solid grounds to sue BrightPath for negligence. Another helpful example is the case of Shyam Kumar v. Care Quality Commission (2022), which was seen by the Court as unfair by reporting wrong procedures and being dismissed later on, similar to Dr. Amelia, who reported the accident, complained about safety procedures and requested support, but she was dismissed not long after.

To remediate this, BrightPath should consider starting early conciliation through the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) to reduce the legal and reputational risks related to Amelia's dismissal. This could help reach a confidential agreement before any formal tribunal claim. The company should also review its disciplinary procedures to ensure it follows the ACAS Code of Practice. In addition, a review of the lab's health and safety procedures is recommended to ensure training and support when working with complex equipment or reporting risks. Providing ACAS training for managers on handling misconduct and safety concerns would also help make processes fairer and prevent future problems.

Rami's concerns regarding disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment

Rami is a student support officer with a hearing impairment who joined the University to help strengthen accessibility initiatives. Although his introduction was welcomed initially, later, he encountered problems that impacted his well-being and performance. Rami reported ongoing comments from colleagues, such as jokes about whether people needed to "shout" for him to hear, which, although possibly intended as humour, can be considered disability-related harassment under the Equality Act 2010.

When looking for disability definition, Section 6(1) of the same Equality Act 2010 considers a person disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment, while Section 6(2) explains that this must have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to perform routine daily activities - and note that Rami's hearing loss meets this definition, which means it is a protected characteristic. The University has a legal duty to ensure he is not mistreated.

According to Section 26(1) of the Equality Act, harassment occurs when a person engages in unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, such as disability, which has the purpose or effect of violating the individual's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. In Rami's perception, these comments make the environment hostile and humiliating. It's also meaningful to highlight that, according to the law, it is the effect of the behaviour on the individual that matters, not the intent of the behaviour, as shown in previous cases law such as Ms Toure vs HMRC (2024) that unwanted conduct amounts to harassment the Court has ordered remedy judgment £25,000 for Ms Toure.

In addition to these claims, Rami asked for work adjustments to meet his performance expectations. He requested transcripts, quieter rooms to support his hearing needs and assistive technology. However, these requests were not followed through even after HR acknowledged them. Under Section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010, if a disabled person is at a clear disadvantage because of how things are proceeding at work, the employer must make reasonable adjustments to fix that or give Rami reasonable reasons why the business can't support his needs. 

Otherwise, his requirements will likely be considered reasonable in his favour if he decides to raise a claim às unlawful discrimination under Section 21(1): "Failure to comply with the first, second or third requirement is a failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments". In Rami's case, not attending to his requirements, particularly after he raised the issue multiple times, may constitute a breach of BrightPath's duty. This event is similar to Paul Rimmer v. Department for Work and Pensions (2024) case law, when a deaf man was not provided support, and The tribunal held that the employer's conduct was discriminatory and granted Mr Rimmer £50,000 in compensation. This is an example that the Court would decide in Ramis' favour.

To prevent this situation from escalating to a formal claim, I suggest the University gives Rami a safe and confidential space to talk about his experience as a part of a personalised support plan to help him feel included and able to do his job effectively with previous requirements -  transcriptions, proper meeting rooms, assistive technology and regular check-ins with HR to review his needs. These steps would demonstrate the University's University's commitment to Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010. Also, it reflects the best practice guidance set out by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), which encourages early and informal resolution of workplace concerns before they escalate. 

Plus, it would be appropriate to investigate and take action on insensitive comments, involving giving advice or applying disciplinary measures in line with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures to follow legal responsibility under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 to prevent and respond to harassment linked to protected characteristics such as disability.

Final thoughts

These two situations reveal significant legal and reputational risks if claims are raised in court. By taking a closer look at why Dr Amelia was fired and at Rami's concerns and following the suggestions outlined, BrightPath can prevent taking it to court and will demonstrate that it values fairness, safety, and inclusiveness by following procedures. Furthermore, I strongly recommend revisiting internal policies for dismissal, health & safety, disability, and conduct codes to avoid future problems and increase trust in our organization. 

Please let me know if you would like to discuss all the issues mentioned in a call.

Best regards,

Renata Rocha

Employee Relations at BrightPath University