And speaking of lists brings me to the case of Wainwright v Cennox PLC 2023, and the significance of a list of reasons to make a claim.

Ms Wainwright was employed by Cennox PLC in January 2018 following a TUPE transfer from her previous employer with whom she had worked in a senior role since 2002.

In August 2018, Ms Wainwright was diagnosed with cancer and went on long-term sick leave as she began chemotherapy. While she was absent, Cennox appointed someone else permanently to her role. Ms Wainwright only found out about this in November 2018 through LinkedIn, not from her employer. When she raised concerns, she was told the appointment was temporary and would not affect her position.

In July 2019, when Ms Wainwright returned to work, she was provided with a new job description and organisation chart, into which her role fitted. She was unhappy about these changes and felt they reduced her status, although Cennox disagreed.

Ms Wainwright raised a formal grievance, but the process took longer than it should have, and she was subsequently signed off of work due to stress. Matters escalated further when Ms Wainwright’s email account was suspended because Cennox heard that a customer had approached her during her period of sick leave about a possible job. Feeling that she had been treated unfairly, Ms Wainwright resigned in September 2019.

Ms Wainwright then filed claims of disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal.

At first instance, the ET accepted that some of Cennox’s actions were discriminatory. In particular, appointing someone permanently to Ms Wainwright’s role while she was absent because of her disability, and then giving her inaccurate information about that appointment, amounting to unfavourable treatment linked to her disability. However, the ET still rejected Ms Wainwright’s claims of constructive unfair dismissal and discriminatory dismissal. It concluded that the real reason she resigned was that she did not like the job title she was given on her return, rather than because of the discriminatory treatment she had experienced.

Ms Wainwright appealed the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the ET had not properly considered whether the discriminatory acts were serious enough to break the relationship of trust and confidence between her and Cennox. Ms Wainwright also said the ET applied the wrong test when looking at why she resigned. Instead of asking whether the discrimination was the only or main reason she resigned, the ET should have asked whether it contributed to her decision.

The EAT upheld Ms Wainwright’s appeal. The EAT found that the ET had failed to consider a key question: whether the discriminatory treatment it had already accepted could amount to a fundamental breach of contract. The EAT also held that the ET had not properly explained whether Ms Wainwright had “affirmed” her contract (i.e., accepted the situation and carried on) or whether the discrimination played a real part in why she resigned. Importantly, the EAT confirmed that an employee does not need to be motivated solely by discriminatory treatment for that treatment to justify resignation. Because of these mistakes, the case was sent back to a new ET to be heard again.

This case is important for employers because it reinforces that decisions made while an employee is absent for disability-related reasons must be handled with exceptional care. The EAT made clear that discriminatory treatment, even if it is only one of several factors influencing an employee’s resignation, can be serious enough to amount to a fundamental breach of contract and lead to a successful constructive dismissal claim. Employers therefore cannot assume that an employee will only succeed if discrimination is the main or sole reason they resign. The judgment highlights the importance of transparency, accurate communication, and fair processes during sickness absence, particularly where roles or responsibilities may change. Failing to manage these issues properly can expose employers not only to discrimination claims but also to substantial liability for constructive dismissal.