Accenture Faces Employment Appeal Tribunal Setback Over Dismissal And Disability Claims
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has identified errors in a previous ruling concerning Accenture, impacting dismissal and disability discrimination claims.
• public
Key Procedural and Disability Issues Highlighted in Accenture Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that the Employment Tribunal (ET) made significant errors in its handling of an unfair dismissal and disability discrimination case brought against Accenture (UK) Ltd. The EAT's judgment, delivered on 19 January 2026, highlights issues with the ET's assessment of a "Polkey reduction" and its analysis of the claimant's disability status.
Unfair Dismissal and Polkey Reduction Under Scrutiny
A central point of contention was the ET's application of a "Polkey reduction," which is used to reduce compensation awards when an employer can demonstrate that a fair dismissal would likely have occurred even without the procedural errors that made the actual dismissal unfair. The EAT found that the ET erred by applying an incorrect counterfactual, essentially assessing what *it* would have done rather than what Accenture would have done had it been given the opportunity to correct its procedural failings.
The ET had initially found the dismissal unfair due to Accenture's failure to follow its own Disciplinary and Appeals Policy. Specifically, the tribunal noted the absence of a formal investigation and the involvement of individuals who had previously been involved in the claimant's performance management. However, it then applied a 100% Polkey reduction, suggesting the dismissal would have been fair regardless of the procedural breaches.
The EAT has now remitted this aspect of the case back to a differently constituted tribunal for a fresh assessment. This will involve a detailed examination of what Accenture *would* or *might* have done had it complied with its policies, including the possibility of a fair dismissal following a proper investigation and the involvement of independent decision-makers. The tribunal will also need to reconsider whether Accenture's "progression based performance model," often referred to as an "up or elsewhere" model, could form the basis of a potentially fair reason for dismissal.
Disability Discrimination Claim Re-examined
The EAT also found that the ET failed to adequately analyse whether the claimant, who suffers from endometriosis, was a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010. The original tribunal had concluded that the claimant had not proven her endometriosis had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her day-to-day activities, partly due to a distinction drawn between the condition itself and the recovery from surgery.
The EAT stated that the ET's reasoning was "wholly inadequate." It highlighted that the tribunal should have more thoroughly considered the medical evidence, including the claimant's impact statement, and the likelihood of the condition recurring. The tribunal's handling of the employer's knowledge of the disability was also found to be flawed due to the initial error in determining disability status.
Furthermore, the EAT ruled that the ET did not properly assess whether the claimant's dismissal was "because of something arising in consequence of disability." The EAT noted that the tribunal failed to consider if Accenture had taken into account the claimant's sick leave and phased return to work, which arose as a consequence of her endometriosis, even if these were not the sole or principal reasons for dismissal.
Consequently, the EAT has allowed the claimant's appeal on the disability ground, meaning these issues will also be considered afresh.
The case underscores the importance for employers to strictly adhere to their own procedures and to conduct thorough and fair investigations, particularly when dealing with performance issues and potential disability discrimination claims.
Read the entire judgment here: Ms S Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd [2026] EAT 12
