Sanju Pal v Accenture: Unfair Dismissal, Polkey Reduction and Disability Discrimination

Employment law is not just a set of rules; it is also shaped by the real-life experiences of individuals who challenge decisions they believe are unfair. One striking example is the case of Sanju Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd. What began as an unfair dismissal claim has evolved into how tribunals approach compensation and procedural fairness. This case highlights how legal decisions can develop over time, ensuring that employment law adapts to workplace realities.

What Happened?

Ms Sanju Pal worked at Accenture for nearly ten years in a managerial role. In 2018, she was diagnosed with endometriosis, a chronic condition that can cause severe pain and fatigue and significantly affect everyday life. Following surgery, she returned to work on a phased basis.

Accenture had a performance system often referred to as “up or out”, where employees are expected to progress within a certain timeframe. Those deemed not ready for promotion eventually face dismissal. Ms Pal received a “not progressing” rating in 2019 and was later dismissed.

Ms Pal felt that her dismissal was unfair and that she had been discriminated against due to her condition. Ms Pal brought claims to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

The First Tribunal Decision (2022)

In 2022, the Employment Tribunal ruled that Ms Pal had been unfairly dismissed. However, the Tribunal applied Polkey reduction, a principle that reduces compensation if it is believed the dismissal would have happened anyway even if a fair process had been followed. As a result, Ms Pal received only a basic award and no payment for lost earnings.

The tribunal also rejected her disability discrimination claim, finding that her endometriosis did not meet the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. This conclusion was reached despite medical evidence and Ms Pal’s own testimony regarding the impact of her condition.

The decision drew concern among legal practitioners and questions were raised about whether the tribunal had properly considered the medical evidence and whether it was correct to assume that dismissal was inevitable under a promotion-focused performance system.

The Appeal

Ms Pal appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and was successful !

Firstly, the EAT found that the tribunal had misapplied the Polkey principle. Tribunals cannot simply speculate that an employee would have been dismissed regardless of procedural fairness. Instead, they must carefully assess what the employer would have done if it had followed a fair and lawful process.

Secondly, the EAT examined Accenture’s “up or out” performance system. It clarified that such systems do not automatically justify dismissal. The key question must be whether the employee can perform their current role, not whether they are ready for promotion. This distinction has important implications for many employers using structured performance frameworks.

Thirdly, the EAT found that the tribunal’s handling of the disability claims were flawed. The tribunal had failed to adequately consider medical evidence or the long-term and recurring nature of Ms Pal’s condition. The EAT emphasized that tribunals must conduct a careful, structured analysis when deciding whether a condition qualifies as a disability under the Equality Act.

Finally, the EAT highlighted that credibility findings must be issue-specific and evidence-based rather than broad or generalized.

Contact us

For employees facing dismissal, discrimination, or performance concerns and for employers seeking to ensure lawful and fair practices early expert advice is essential. At Chatterton Solicitors we have an experienced employment team that can provide clear, practical, and supportive guidance for anyone navigating similar workplace issues.

Please do not hesitate to contact our Employment Law Team or make an enquiry here.