And speaking of the up and up (possibly) of celebrity robots brings me to the debatable “up and out” model of career progression at the core of Ms S Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd (2026) and whether a 100% reduction of compensation was justified.

Ms Pal was employed as an analyst by Accenture in August 2009. In March 2011 she was promoted to consultant and in September 2013 further promoted to manager. The next step? Senior manager — and there was no little pressure to get there. Accenture operated a “progression-based” or “up or elsewhere” performance model, requiring employees not only to perform their current role but also to demonstrate readiness for promotion within a set timeframe (typically three to four years at manager level).

Failure to progress could result in dismissal.

In 2018, Ms Pal was diagnosed with endometriosis after surgery and experienced periods of sickness absence between September 2018 and January 2019. She returned to work on a phased basis but continued to experience symptoms such as fatigue and pain. During this period, she received two “Not Progressing” performance ratings (August 2018 and March 2019). Accenture considered her performance deficient, citing low chargeability, insufficient client development and lack of progression toward Senior Manager level. Despite some positive feedback in a later role, her overall performance metrics remained below target. She was invited to a performance meeting in June 2019 and ultimately dismissed on 3 July 2019, with her employment ending on 17 July 2019.

After her internal appeal was unsuccessful, Ms Pal turned to the Employment Tribunal. She argued that her dismissal was unfair and that her medical condition had not been properly taken into account.

The ET found that the reason for dismissal was her performance, which could constitute a potentially fair reason. It accepted that Accenture had genuine concerns about her performance and that its progression-based model was not inherently unfair. However, the ET also found that Accenture had failed to follow its own disciplinary procedures, particularly by not conducting a proper investigation and by using decision-makers who had already been involved in the process. As a result, the dismissal was held to be unfair. Despite this, the ET concluded that Ms Pal would have been dismissed in any event if a fair procedure had been followed, and it therefore applied a 100% reduction to her compensation under the Polkey principle, which allows compensation to be reduced where dismissal would likely have occurred even if a fair procedure had been followed. The ET Also found that Ms Pal was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010 regarding her endometriosis, as she had not demonstrated a substantial and long term adverse effect on day-to-day activities.

Ms Pal then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in law in its approach to the Polkey reduction. It found that the ET had applied the wrong counterfactual by effectively assuming what a fair procedure might have looked like, rather than assessing what this particular employer would actually have done if it had followed its own procedures correctly.

The EAT emphasised that the assessment must be based on evidence about the employer’s likely actions, not on hypothetical improvements to its processes. Because of this error, the finding of a 100% Polkey reduction was set aside and the case was remitted for reconsideration. The EAT also found that Accenture’s ‘Progression-Based Model’ was unfair, and that an employee may only be dismissed for “the work of the kind which he was employed to do”. Whilst a contract could set out that the work required may include demonstrating the ability for a promotion, the employer would still need to show this was fair if the employee had not carried out the next level of work. The EAT also found that the ET’s reasoning for Ms Pal not being disabled was “wholly inadequate”, and did not consider the likelihood of recurrence, when such recurrence had occurred before.

In conclusion, the case highlights the importance of properly applying both disability discrimination principles and the Polkey doctrine in unfair dismissal claims. While the ET accepted that Ms Pal’s dismissal was procedurally unfair, it erred in removing all compensation without adequately grounding its reasoning in the factual circumstances of what Accenture would actually have done.

The EAT’s decision reinforces that tribunals must base Polkey reductions on evidence rather than speculation. More broadly, the case illustrates the potential tension between rigid performance-based models and the need to fairly accommodate employees with medical conditions, particularly where those conditions may amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010.