Foat v Department for Work and Pensions [2026] EAT 61
Mr Foat, a long-serving DWP employee, brought claims for disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and constructive unfair dismissal following a series of workplace events that occurred between 2018 and 2019.
Mr Foat had a history of mental health difficulties and later developed severe depression, anxiety and fibromyalgia. He alleged that management's handling of workplace issues significantly contributed to the deterioration of his health. The complaints centred on several incidents, including a decision preventing him from driving as part of his duties, the way a workplace conduct meeting was handled, a requirement to attend a review meeting despite his health concerns, and the employer's failure to arrange workplace mediation.
The Employment Tribunal found that several of these actions amounted to disability-related harassment. It also concluded that the employer had failed to make a reasonable adjustment by not offering mediation and that the cumulative effect of the conduct entitled Mr Foat to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal. Compensation exceeding £370,000 was awarded, including injury to feelings, personal injury and future financial losses.
The Department for Work and Pensions appealed aspects of the compensation award, while Mr Foat challenged several elements of the Tribunal's approach to remedy.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed all of Mr Foat's grounds of appeal. It upheld the Tribunal's decisions regarding the ACAS uplift, the assessment of future contingencies and the deduction of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) benefits from compensation. In doing so, the EAT confirmed that benefits received as a consequence of an employer's unlawful conduct may be deducted from compensation even where they do not directly correspond to the same head of loss.
The DWP's cross-appeal succeeded on one point. The EAT found that the Tribunal had incorrectly used a gross salary figure when calculating future loss of earnings. Substituting the correct net figure reduced the future loss award and lowered the overall compensation from approximately £374,000 to £335,000.
This case highlights the significant liability that can arise where workplace management of a disabled employee is mishandled, particularly where concerns about health, workplace relationships and potential adjustments are not adequately addressed.
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 reported facts contained within the judgment. The scenario was stripped of all references to the Tribunal's findings, compensation award and appeal outcome before being analysed by Lex HR.
The risk assessment below shows the claims Lex HR identified and the outcome it predicted based solely on a workplace scenario recreated from the facts reported in the published EAT judgment, with all references to the Tribunal's findings and appeal outcome removed.
Lex HR Employment Tribunal Risk Analysis
To test Lex HR's Employment Tribunal Risk Analyser, we recreated the workplace scenario using only the underlying facts reported in the published EAT judgment. All references to the Tribunal's findings, compensation award and appeal outcome were removed before the scenario was analysed by Lex HR.
| Potential legal claim | Most likely Tribunal judgment on these facts | 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 were medically significant and likely to satisfy disability status; management knowledge is likely given the long history of health difficulties and requests for support. The driving restriction, the April 2018 conduct meeting, insistence on the May 2019 review meeting at a particular location, and refusal to implement support such as mediation could each be viewed as unfavourable treatment because of matters arising from disability, including stress-related behaviour, absence, relational difficulty, or inability to cope with management processes. The employer may argue legitimate aims such as operational management and workplace standards, but on these facts the proportionality defence looks vulnerable because there is little indication of meaningful adjustment, medical exploration, or alternative process design. Lack of underlying documents means risk is moderated, but this remains the strongest claim. | 8/10 ■■■■■■■■□□ |
| Failure to make reasonable adjustments (ss.20–21 Equality Act 2010) | Likely to have reasonable prospects, though fact-sensitive. If the employer's practices included banning driving, requiring attendance at meetings in a particular format/location, and persisting with contentious management processes without mediation or other support, a Tribunal could find those PCPs placed the employee at substantial disadvantage because of his mental health and fibromyalgia. Potential adjustments apparently discussed but not implemented included mediation, altered meeting arrangements, different venue, supportive process management, and broader relationship-management measures. Risk is slightly lower than s.15 because the precise adjustment requests, feasibility, and medical linkage are not fully evidenced in the materials provided. | 7/10 ■■■■■■■□□□ |
| Constructive unfair dismissal | Moderate to high risk if the employee had qualifying service, which he plainly did. On the stated facts, a Tribunal could find a cumulative breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence: an arguably unnecessary driving restriction, an upsetting conduct meeting, worsening management relations, failure to implement discussed support/mediation, and insistence on a formal review meeting notwithstanding health concerns, culminating in resignation. The main uncertainty is whether the employer's actions were sufficiently grave, and whether resignation followed promptly enough after the final act. | 7/10 ■■■■■■■□□□ |
| Unfair dismissal (constructive) | If constructive dismissal is established, the unfair dismissal claim would also likely succeed unless the employer could show a potentially fair reason and a fair, reasonable process. On the present facts, the employer appears exposed because there is limited indication of proper medical investigation, occupational health input, genuine consultation, or serious exploration of alternatives before the relationship broke down. Risk is aligned with constructive dismissal but slightly dependent on whether repudiatory breach is first made out. | 6/10 ■■■■■■□□□□ |
| Disability harassment (s.26 Equality Act 2010) | Possible but less certain. The employee says the April 2018 meeting was confrontational and upsetting, management were unsympathetic, and the overall treatment caused distress. However, harassment requires unwanted conduct related to disability with the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The current facts suggest poor management handling rather than clearly disability-related hostile conduct. Without clearer evidence of disability-linked remarks, mocking, hostility, or oppressive conduct, this claim is arguable but materially weaker. | 4/10 ■■■■□□□□□□ |
| Personal injury / psychiatric injury linked to ET claims | Not a standalone ET claim in the usual sense, but psychiatric injury could materially increase compensation if discrimination or unfair dismissal succeeds. The factual basis for causation is mixed: medical evidence supports deterioration and inability to continue working, but there is also evidence of pre-existing vulnerability and prior mental health difficulties. In ET terms, the Tribunal would likely accept some contribution to injury to feelings and possibly personal injury if properly pleaded and medically supported, but would probably discount for pre-existing condition and evidential complexity. | 4/10 ■■■■□□□□□□ |
How did Lex HR compare?
Using only a reconstructed workplace scenario based on the facts reported in the published EAT judgment, Lex HR identified the key legal risks that ultimately featured in the dispute. The analysis highlighted significant exposure relating to disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments, constructive dismissal and unfair dismissal, demonstrating how potential Employment Tribunal risks can often be identified before litigation begins.
Interestingly, Lex did not simply mirror the Tribunal's eventual findings. While the Tribunal ultimately upheld disability-related harassment claims, Lex assessed harassment as a lower-risk claim based solely on the facts presented in the recreated scenario. This reflects one of the challenges of Employment Tribunal risk analysis: outcomes often depend on evidence, witness credibility and factual nuances that may not be fully apparent from an initial workplace account.
Overall, the exercise demonstrates how Lex HR can identify and prioritise the key legal risks arising from a workplace dispute before litigation occurs, helping employers focus attention on the areas most likely to create Tribunal exposure.
Try Lex HR Free
Lex HR provides instant access to practical HR and employment law guidance for employers. Whether you're dealing with absence management, disciplinary issues, grievances, performance concerns, discrimination risks, workplace investigations or Employment Tribunal claims, Lex HR helps you identify risks and take informed action quickly.
Start your free trial today and see how Lex HR can help your organisation stay compliant, reduce risk and manage workplace issues with confidence.
Visit lexhr.ai to start your free trial.