And speaking of aiming high brings me, conversely, to the case of Blewitt v Mach Recruitment Ltd, which hits all the lows —  unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and disability discrimination.

Mr Blewitt was employed by Mach Recruitment Ltd as a regional operations director. He had 22 years of experience in the recruitment industry and described himself as a “workaholic”.

On 7 February 2020, Mr Blewitt suffered a cardiac arrest, which resulted in a hypoxic brain injury. Over the following weeks, he regained his mobility and speech, however, his memory and cognitive abilities were adversely affected. In addition, he continued to experience significant fatigue and anxiety.

In October 2020, Mr Blewitt returned to work, by which time the workplace and working practices had changed significantly due to the Coronavirus pandemic. In his own evidence, he emphasised that his impaired memory and other cognitive difficulties made this a particularly “challenging transition” for him.

As part of his evidence, Mr Blewitt submitted an Occupational Health Report dated 21 January 2021. The report stated that he was "eligible for consideration of reasonable adjustments" and recommended sixteen specific adjustments.

On 27 September 2022, Mr Blewitt was contacted by the Head of HR, who informed him that he would be let go following a decision to reduce the headcount within the senior team. This was attributed to a downturn in business and negative press coverage. There was no indication that this was a provisional proposal or that any period of consultation would follow. When Mr Blewitt sought clarification as to whether this amounted to a redundancy, the call was abruptly ended, and he was told that she would call him back. Two days later, during a follow-up call, he was informed that he was being dismissed with immediate effect on the grounds of ill-health. No further details were provided.

Mr Blewitt did not receive payment for his notice period.

Subsequently, Mr Blewitt submitted his claim to the Employment Tribunal on 29 December 2022. He alleged that he was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed, and that he was subjected to discrimination on the grounds of disability.

The ET found that Mr Blewitt had been both wrongfully and unfairly dismissed.

In relation to the wrongful dismissal, the ET noted that there was “no suggestion that the [employer] had cause to terminate his employment without notice or payment in lieu of notice”. The ET also upheld the claim of unfair dismissal. While acknowledging that incapability can constitute a potentially fair reason for dismissal, the ET concluded that this was not applicable in Mr Blewitt’s case. It observed that when Mr Blewitt questioned whether his dismissal would be treated as redundancy during the initial call with the Head of HR, the employer “changed tack and proceeded instead to terminate him on grounds of incapability”.

Additionally, the ET noted that the employer gave “no thought” to the matter, even if it had genuine concerns about Mr Blewitt’s ability to perform his role. There was no evidence to suggest that the employer had assessed whether Mr Blewitt’s health issues were impacting his performance, nor was he given the opportunity to consider or respond to any concerns through a formal capability process. He was not offered training, feedback, or other forms of support, including reasonable adjustments to help him meet the employer’s expectations. Furthermore, there was no up-to-date medical evidence or current occupational health assessment available at the time the decision to dismiss Mr Blewitt was made.

Furthermore, the ET held that Mr Blewitt “was perceived as an inconvenience to the business and that stereotypical assumptions were made regarding his ongoing ability perform his role and contribute”.

With regard to the claim of disability discrimination, the ET held that Mr Blewitt was essentially “left to his own devices” and expected to “get on with the job” without clear direction or guidance as to what was expected of him. The ET also noted that the employer had failed to implement the 16 reasonable adjustments recommended in the Occupational Health Report.

Mr Blewitt was awarded compensation amounting to £187,585.43.

In conclusion, this case highlights the importance of following a fair and transparent process when dealing with performance concerns, including obtaining up-to-date medical evidence where appropriate. It also reinforces the duty on employers to proactively consider and implement reasonable adjustments, rather than treating disability-related challenges as a justification for dismissal.