An organization founded on the principle of supporting vulnerable individuals faces a profound paradox when it is accused of failing one of its own employees with disabilities, raising critical questions about the gap between mission statements and internal practices. Such a scenario unfolded in a landmark employment tribunal case, where a UK-based disability charity, Shared Lives South West, was ordered to pay a significant six-figure sum in compensation for the unfair dismissal and discrimination of a long-serving staff member. The case centered on William Drysdale-Wood, an employee whose long-term battle with Crohn’s disease was exacerbated by the lingering effects of Covid-19, ultimately leading to his termination in September 2023. This ruling serves as a stark reminder that even organizations with a deep understanding of disability are not immune to the legal and ethical obligations required of all employers, forcing a necessary examination of how well-intentioned policies are implemented when they are put to the test by the complex realities of chronic illness in the workplace.
The Anatomy of a Discrimination Case
A History of Health Challenges
The employment relationship between William Drysdale-Wood and Shared Lives South West began in September 2015, when he was hired as a coordinator for the Devon-based charity. From the very start of his tenure, the organization, which provides crucial support to adults with conditions like autism and dementia, was fully aware that he lived with Crohn’s disease, a lifelong and often debilitating condition. For years, Drysdale-Wood managed his responsibilities effectively within the supportive framework one might expect from such an employer. However, the delicate balance of his health was severely disrupted in 2022 when he contracted Covid-19. The initial illness evolved into a more persistent and challenging health crisis, with subsequent diagnoses of long Covid and chronic fatigue. These new conditions compounded the difficulties posed by his pre-existing Crohn’s disease, creating a complex web of symptoms that significantly impacted his ability to work consistently and presented a new, more profound challenge to both him and his employer.
The situation reached a critical point following two distinct periods of extended absence. The first occurred between November 2022 and January 2023, a leave of absence taken strictly on the advice of his medical team as he grappled with the severe impacts of his conditions. He returned to work, but the challenges persisted. A second significant absence took place during the summer of 2023. Crucially, Drysdale-Wood attributed this later period away from work directly to what he perceived as the charity’s failure to implement necessary and reasonable adjustments to his role. He argued that these accommodations would have enabled him to manage his health while continuing to fulfill his duties. This claim became a central pillar of the ensuing legal dispute, shifting the focus from simply managing his absences to scrutinizing the proactive steps the charity took—or failed to take—to support a disabled employee in a time of escalating need, ultimately leading to the breakdown of the employment relationship and his dismissal.
The Charity’s Justification and the Court’s Rebuke
In its official termination letter, Shared Lives South West presented a defense of its decision to dismiss Drysdale-Wood. The charity argued that it had exercised an “increased tolerance” concerning his absences, acknowledging their connection to his disability. However, it maintained that the cumulative effect of his non-attendance had placed an unreasonable and unsustainable burden on the rest of the staff, disrupting team operations and service delivery. Furthermore, the organization contended that the inherent nature of the coordinator role demanded a significant level of in-person engagement. It emphasized that essential duties, such as conducting home visits with clients and participating in community outreach, were core functions that could not be adequately performed through remote work arrangements. This position suggested that the necessary accommodations would fundamentally alter the job’s essential requirements, making his continued employment untenable from an operational standpoint, despite the organization’s mission to support vulnerable populations.
Despite the charity’s detailed justification, an employment tribunal delivered a decisive liability judgment that sided firmly with the former employee. The court upheld Drysdale-Wood’s claims on multiple fronts, finding the organization guilty of unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and a critical failure to make reasonable adjustments as required by law. The judgment validated the claimant’s position that the charity had not fulfilled its legal obligations to support him as his health challenges intensified. The court explicitly acknowledged the significant and multifaceted health issues Drysdale-Wood faced, effectively refuting the charity’s argument that his absences were unmanageable. This ruling underscored a fundamental principle: an employer’s duty to accommodate extends beyond passive tolerance and requires proactive, reasonable steps to keep a disabled employee in the workforce, a standard from which a disability-focused charity was not exempt.
The Financial and Reputational Aftermath
Calculating the Cost of Discrimination
The financial consequences for Shared Lives South West were substantial, reflecting the severity of the tribunal’s findings. The process of determining the final compensation award involved several adjustments, illustrating the meticulous nature of such legal calculations. Initially, the court calculated a figure of £162,000 to be paid to William Drysdale-Wood. This amount was subsequently revised upward to £167,000 after an error in the tax calculation was identified and corrected, ensuring the claimant would receive the full intended sum after statutory deductions. However, the figure underwent one final change before being finalized. The charity raised specific concerns regarding how state benefits received by Drysdale-Wood had been factored into the compensation equation. After reviewing these points, the court adjusted the total downward. The final, binding award was set at approximately £152,745, a significant financial penalty that served as a direct consequence of the charity’s discriminatory actions and its failure to adhere to employment law.
Broader Implications for the Sector
The case of Shared Lives South West offered a powerful lesson that resonated far beyond the specific parties involved, sending a clear message to the entire charitable and non-profit sector. It highlighted the critical importance of ensuring that an organization’s internal employment practices are in complete alignment with its public-facing mission. For a charity dedicated to supporting disabled individuals, the finding of disability discrimination created a stark and damaging contradiction that could erode public trust and stakeholder confidence. The ruling underscored that no employer, regardless of its sector or mission, is above the legal duty to provide reasonable adjustments. It demonstrated that operational pressures or perceived burdens on other staff do not absolve an organization of its responsibility to explore all viable accommodations. This tribunal’s decision ultimately served as a precedent, reminding all employers that a genuine commitment to disability rights must be reflected not only in the services they provide but also in the unwavering support and legal protections they afford their own disabled employees.
