Redundancy and Disability Discrimination Case
How We Helped Improve a Redundancy Exit Where Disability Related Concerns Had Already Been Raised
Experiencing a situation similar to this?
Get in touch with Settlement Agreement Advice today.
The Situation Our Client Faced
Our client worked in a research and insights co-ordinator role. In practice, however, her duties had moved well beyond the original job description. She had taken on a broader combined role involving project and programme work, including managing a consultancy pipeline and organising funded programmes and projects. Despite that expansion in responsibilities, there was no updated contract reflecting the work she was actually doing.
The documents showed that she had a strong employment record and no performance concerns had been raised against her. They also showed that she had formally disclosed autism and ADHD, had notified her employer of her need for reasonable adjustments, and had completed a neurodiversity passport. Shortly after returning to work following a major bereavement, she found herself facing a workplace restructure and a redundancy process.
How We Helped
We advised our client after she was placed into a redundancy process at a particularly difficult time. She had a strong work record, had recently experienced a bereavement, and had already disclosed autism and ADHD and asked for reasonable adjustments at work. Against that background, she was told that her role was at risk during what had been presented to her as an organisational update. Our role was not limited to checking the wording of a settlement agreement. We looked at the underlying facts, identified the legal and practical risks, assessed the potential value of the claims, challenged the employer’s initial position and negotiated a materially better package.
We also made sure our client understood exactly what she would be giving up, what she would be receiving and whether the overall deal was fair in the circumstances.
The Legal And Practical Issues
There were several serious concerns. First, there were questions about whether the redundancy situation had been approached fairly and whether the role identified as at risk truly reflected the job our client had been doing in practice. Similar roles has been advertised, and our client’s concern was that the employer was relying on an outdated job description rather than her actual duties.
Secondly, there were disability-related issues. Our client had already raised concerns about reasonable adjustments and about the effect of workplace handling on her health and wellbeing. The consultation process then appeared to proceed in a way that she said did not take those needs into account. She was invited to a meeting described as conversational, told there was nothing to prepare, and then informed that her role was at risk. She also raised concerns about inaccurate or incomplete records, lack of clarity in the consultation, and the way future meetings and communications were managed.
Thirdly, there were wider procedural and confidentiality concerns. Our client reported being excluded from ongoing work soon after being told her role was at risk. She also raised data protection concerns because workplace information connected to the organisational change and redundancy process was said to be visible through shared systems, including calendar entries and related information.
Taken together, these were not just technical legal points. They affected trust, dignity, wellbeing and her ability to engage fairly in the process.
The Outcome We Achieved
The agreed package improved meaningfully on the employer’s earlier position. Our client secured £8,625 in ex gratia compensation, equivalent to three months’ basic salary, together with £1,903 statutory redundancy pay and a £2,875 payment in lieu of notice. She was also to receive accrued holiday pay. In addition, the agreement included an agreed reference, mutual confidentiality and non-derogatory wording, and a £1,250 plus VAT contribution towards legal fees.
Just as importantly, we reviewed the settlement wording carefully and advised our client on the claims being waived, the timing of payment, the confidentiality obligations, and the overall fairness of the deal in the circumstances. That meant she was able to make an informed decision, with a clear understanding of what the agreement achieved and what it required from her in return.
Why This Mattered
For our client, the outcome was about more than numbers. It enabled her to leave on an agreed redundancy basis rather than remain caught in a difficult and uncertain process. It gave her meaningful compensation, notice pay, redundancy pay and holiday pay, together with a reference she could use for future employment.
It also reduced uncertainty at a time when she had already been dealing with significant personal and workplace pressure. Instead of facing the cost and emotional strain of contested Tribunal litigation, she was able to draw a line under the dispute with clarity about payments, confidentiality, and the basis on which the employment relationship would end.
Final Thoughts
This matter is a good example of why early legal advice can make a real difference. A settlement agreement is not just a formality: it is often the point at which both the financial terms and the practical protections are won or lost. By assessing the claims properly, challenging an inadequate first offer and negotiating firmly on both money and wording, we helped our client secure a better and more workable outcome.