In Foat v Department for Work and Pensions [2026] EAT 61, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered appeals arising from a substantial compensation award following findings of disability-related harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, constructive dismissal, and unfair dismissal. The claimant challenged several aspects of the remedy award, including the level of the ACAS uplift, the deduction of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) benefits, the assessment of future losses, and the treatment of an alleged bonus entitlement.
The EAT rejected all of the claimant’s grounds of appeal. It held that the Employment Tribunal had been entitled to apply a modest ACAS uplift, deduct PIP benefits from compensation where those benefits arose as a result of the injury caused by the employer’s unlawful conduct, and adopt a broad-brush approach when assessing future contingencies affecting the claimant’s earning capacity. The EAT also confirmed that the Tribunal was not required to determine a bonus claim that had not been properly pleaded.
However, the employer succeeded on a cross-appeal concerning the calculation of future loss of earnings. The EAT found that the Tribunal had mistakenly used a gross salary figure despite having determined that future compensation would not be taxable. This reduced the future loss award and lowered the overall compensation figure, while leaving all other aspects of the Tribunal’s remedy decision unchanged.
How would Lex HR have assessed this case before Tribunal?
To test Lex HR's Employment Tribunal Risk Analyser, we recreated a workplace scenario based on the facts reported in Foat v Department for Work and Pensions [2026] EAT 61. All references to the Tribunal's findings, compensation award and appeal outcome were removed before the scenario was analysed by Lex HR. The assessment below shows the claims Lex HR identified and the likely Tribunal outcomes based solely on those underlying facts.
Lex HR Employment Tribunal Risk Analysis
| Potential Employment Tribunal claim | Lex HR assessment | Risk score |
|---|---|---|
|
Disability discrimination arising from disability (s.15 Equality Act 2010) |
Likely to succeed in substantial part. The employee's severe depression, anxiety and fibromyalgia are likely to meet the legal definition of disability, and management were aware of his health difficulties. The driving restriction, conduct meeting, requirement to attend a review meeting, and failure to implement support measures such as mediation could all be viewed as unfavourable treatment arising from the employee's disability. While the employer may rely on operational or management justifications, the apparent lack of meaningful adjustments or exploration of alternatives would make defending the claim more difficult. This is the strongest potential claim identified from the facts provided. |
8/10 ■■■■■■■■□□ |
|
Failure to make reasonable adjustments (ss.20–21 Equality Act 2010) |
Likely to have reasonable prospects, although the outcome would depend on the evidence available. Potential workplace practices placing the employee at a disadvantage include the driving restriction, attendance requirements for meetings, and the failure to adapt management processes in light of known health conditions. Mediation, alternative meeting arrangements and other supportive measures appear to have been discussed but not implemented. The absence of evidence explaining why these options were rejected increases the risk of a successful claim. |
7/10 ■■■■■■■□□□ |
| Constructive unfair dismissal |
Moderate to high risk. A Tribunal could conclude that the cumulative effect of the driving restriction, conduct meeting, deteriorating working relationships, failure to progress mediation and insistence on a review meeting amounted to a breach of trust and confidence. The employee's resignation following these events could support an argument that the employment relationship had become untenable. The main uncertainties would be whether the employer's actions were sufficiently serious and whether the resignation followed closely enough after the final incident. |
7/10 ■■■■■■■□□□ |
|
Unfair dismissal (constructive) |
If constructive dismissal is established, an unfair dismissal claim would also have good prospects. The facts suggest limited evidence of medical investigation, consultation, occupational health involvement or serious consideration of alternatives before the relationship broke down. This increases the likelihood that a Tribunal would view the employer's response as falling outside the range of reasonable responses. |
6/10 ■■■■■■□□□□ |
|
Disability harassment (s.26 Equality Act 2010) |
Possible but less certain. The employee describes the conduct meeting and subsequent interactions as confrontational, upsetting and unsympathetic. A Tribunal could conclude that the treatment created a humiliating or degrading environment, particularly given the employee's known health conditions. However, the available facts do not clearly identify disability-related comments, hostility or behaviour specifically linked to the employee's disability, making this claim less certain than the others. |
4/10 ■■■■□□□□□□ |
|
Personal injury / psychiatric injury linked to ET claims |
Not usually a standalone Employment Tribunal claim, but relevant when assessing compensation. Medical evidence supports a deterioration in the employee's mental health and ability to work. However, there is also evidence of pre-existing mental health difficulties which may reduce the extent of any compensation awarded. If liability were established, psychiatric injury would likely increase overall compensation exposure but would remain subject to detailed medical evidence and causation arguments. |
4/10 ■■■■□□□□□□ |
How did Lex HR compare?
Using only a reconstructed workplace scenario based on the facts reported in Foat v Department for Work and Pensions [2026] EAT 61, Lex HR identified the key legal risks that ultimately featured in the dispute, including disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments, constructive dismissal and unfair dismissal. Notably, Lex did not simply mirror the Tribunal's eventual findings, assessing harassment as a lower-risk claim based solely on the facts presented. This demonstrates how Employment Tribunal risk analysis focuses on the evidence available at the time, rather than the benefit of hindsight.