Endometriosis: London woman wins tribunal after she was sacked

LONDON – A landmark ruling by the UK's Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has sent a clear signal to British employers about their legal obligations concerning chronic health conditions. In a case with significant implications for corporate liability and HR policy, a London woman, identified only as Sanju, successfully appealed her dismissal, with the EAT affirming that her endometriosis constitutes a disability under the Equality Act 2010.

The decision, handed down in January 2026, overturns an original tribunal's findings and establishes a critical precedent for how companies must manage employees suffering from long-term, fluctuating, and often "invisible" illnesses. The ruling underscores the financial and reputational risks for firms that fail to recognise and accommodate such conditions.

The Landmark Ruling

The EAT's judgment centered on a fundamental error by the initial employment tribunal. It found the original body had failed to properly consider the substantial and long-term adverse effects of Sanju's endometriosis on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Consequently, the EAT concluded that she was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and had been subjected to discrimination arising from her disability when her employer dismissed her.

• Core Finding: The EAT determined that the original tribunal failed to correctly apply the legal definition of disability. It ruled that Sanju's endometriosis, due to its severe and chronic impact, qualified for protection under the Equality Act.
• Legal Consequence: The dismissal was therefore found to be an act of discrimination. The case will now be remitted to a new tribunal to determine the appropriate remedy, which will likely involve substantial financial compensation.

Background of the Case

Sanju was dismissed from her role at a London-based professional services firm following a period of performance-related concerns, including issues with attendance and meeting targets.

The employer argued that the dismissal was a fair and necessary action based on a consistent failure to meet the requirements of her role. They presented evidence of performance management plans and warnings issued prior to her termination.

However, Sanju's legal team contended that these performance issues were a direct consequence of her severe endometriosis symptoms.

• Employee's Position: Sanju suffered from debilitating chronic pain, severe fatigue, and other symptoms that directly impacted her concentration and ability to be present at work. She argued that her employer was aware of her condition but failed to make legally required "reasonable adjustments."
• Employer's Stance: The firm's position was that it had followed standard performance management procedures. The original tribunal sided with the employer, deeming the dismissal fair based on performance metrics alone.
• The Appeal: Sanju's appeal focused on the central legal question: did her endometriosis qualify as a disability? Her team argued the original tribunal had not given sufficient weight to the medical evidence and the debilitating nature of her condition.

The Legal Framework: Disability and the Equality Act

This case hinges on the specific definition of "disability" under UK law, which is a crucial area of compliance for all employers.

The Equality Act 2010 defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a 'substantial' and 'long-term' negative effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

• Substantial Effect: This means the effect is more than minor or trivial. For conditions like endometriosis, symptoms such as intense pelvic pain, heavy bleeding, and chronic fatigue can easily meet this threshold.
• Long-Term Effect: The impairment must have lasted or be expected to last for at least 12 months. As endometriosis is a chronic condition with no cure, it automatically satisfies this criterion.
• Normal Day-to-Day Activities: This includes general activities such as walking, concentrating, and participating in work or social life. The EAT's ruling confirms that the impact of endometriosis can significantly hinder these activities.

The significance of the EAT's decision is its reinforcement that conditions do not need to be constantly debilitating to be legally classified as a disability. The fluctuating nature of endometriosis, with periods of intense symptoms followed by periods of relative normalcy, is explicitly covered by the Act.

Implications for UK Employers

The ruling serves as a critical wake-up call for boards, senior management, and HR departments across the country. It moves the legal understanding of endometriosis and similar chronic illnesses out of a grey area and into the clear light of disability law.

Companies must now proactively review their policies and training to mitigate legal risk.

• Review HR Policies: Sickness absence, performance management, and flexible working policies must be scrutinised to ensure they do not inadvertently discriminate against employees with chronic health conditions. A "one-size-fits-all" approach to performance is no longer legally defensible.
• Mandate Manager Training: Line managers, who are often the first point of contact, must be trained to recognise potential disabilities and understand their duty to consider reasonable adjustments. They need to know how to handle sensitive conversations and when to escalate to HR for specialist advice.
• Focus on Reasonable Adjustments: Firms must be prepared to engage in meaningful dialogue with employees about what adjustments could help them remain productive. This could include flexible start/finish times, home-working options, providing ergonomic equipment, or reallocating certain physically demanding tasks.
• Financial Risk Mitigation: The cost of getting this wrong is significant. Tribunal awards for disability discrimination are uncapped and can run into tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds, in addition to extensive legal fees and severe reputational damage.

What Happens Next

For Sanju, the case will return to an employment tribunal to decide on the compensation she is owed for unlawful dismissal and discrimination.

For British business, the work is just beginning. This EAT judgment will be cited in future cases involving endometriosis, fibromyalgia, long COVID, and other chronic conditions. It solidifies the legal requirement for employers to look beyond simple attendance records and performance data and consider the underlying health context of their employees.

Legal and HR advisors will be urging clients to adopt a more inquisitive and supportive approach. The key takeaway is that ignoring or dismissing the impact of a chronic illness is not just a management failure—it is a significant and costly legal liability.