29-05-2025
Breast cancer survivor wins £15,000 payout after she was sacked by marketing firm while she was off sick during treatment
A breast cancer survivor has won a £15,000 payout after she was fired by a marketing firm while she was 'seriously ill'.
'Dedicated' Lauren Henry was sacked 'out of the blue' while on sick leave, which she was forced to take due to a post-operation infection, a tribunal heard.
The executive had only joined the marketing agency a week before she was diagnosed with cancer, it was heard.
The panel heard that the driven executive had been recruited to 'generate revenue' for the business - but was unable to do so because of her absence.
This ultimately led to managing director Jamie Parker firing her due to financial difficulties in which it became 'untenable' to 'support' her through her illness.
The tribunal heard that the impact of her dismissal meant that Mrs Henry went from being a 'confident woman' to someone who 'felt diminished and less able to cope with working life'.
The mother sued the marketing agency for discrimination arising from disability and her claims have now been upheld by a judge who spoke of the 'considerable anguish' caused to Mrs Henry.
The tribunal, held in Reading, was told that Mrs Henry started working for Red Rag Marketing as Business Development Executive on May 22, 2023.
The business is a small marketing agency based in Crewe, Cheshire.
The panel heard that on May 30, eight days after joining, Mrs Henry was diagnosed with breast cancer.
She telephoned her new boss the following day and said that her previous employers had asked her if she would like to return to their employment and that they would assist her through her treatment.
But, Mr Parker - who was said to be the 'controlling mind' of the business - told his employee that she should 'stay' with his agency and they could 'work around' her medical appointments and he would 'support' her.
Mrs Henry continued to work for Mr Parker and told the tribunal that in June of that year he was 'happy with her progress'.
On July 4, Mrs Henry had her first operation.
From that day onwards, she continued to work from home but it was heard that on July 17, she suffered a 'post operative infection'.
She was ruled as being unfit for work for six weeks due to 'postoperative complications' and was due to return on August 28.
But, on August 10, Mr Parker sent her an email to say that she was dismissed with one week's notice.
The director said that it had become 'untenable' to 'support' Mrs Henry through her illness due to 'circumstances beyond our control'.
Mrs Henry - who was described by the panel as being a 'good and dedicated worker' - told the panel that this came 'out of the blue' as far as she was concerned.
An employment tribunal heard that Mr Parker sacked her due to 'financial difficulties' which had existed before Mrs Henry had been hired.
It was heard that as 'part of a plan' to improve their financial situation, Mrs Henry was recruited and the idea was that she would 'bring in new business and improve the revenue situation'.
Mrs Henry took the marketing business to an employment tribunal, alleging direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability.
The employee detailed the impact her dismissal had on her, and said that she now has a 'lack of trust in future employers' because of the manner in which she was let go when she was 'seriously ill'.
She said it made her feel 'ashamed of her cancer as if it was something to hide' and left her and her family 'exposed to the stress and worry that this financial instability caused'.
Her husband gave evidence that she went from being a 'confident woman' to someone who 'felt diminished and less able to cope with working life'.
Employment Judge Lorna Findlay said the reason that Mrs Henry was selected to be dismissed was that 'she had been recruited to generate revenue but could not do so because of her sickness absence'.
Dismissing her claims of direct discrimination, the judge said that this would have happened to 'someone else' who was in their probationary period and 'had needed up to six weeks off for a reason unrelated to disability at that time'.
But, she upheld her claims of discrimination arising from disability.
The judge said Mr Parker has provided 'only vague and scanty evidence' of their financial situation but accepted that Mrs Henry's dismissal was 'part of his plan to reduce costs'.
But, she added: 'Although we have found that his decision to choose [Mrs Henry] was also significantly influenced by her disability related absence...
'The discriminatory impact on the claimant of being dismissed whilst off sick and being treated for cancer was severe.
'She lost her employment at a point when she was least able to find an alternative.'
EJ Findlay continued: 'The dismissal came when [Mrs Henry] was at her lowest point given her cancer diagnosis and the fact that she had complications after her surgery...
'This has caused her considerable anguish as she felt let down by the [business], having trusted Mr Parker.
'These feelings of upset, worry and shame came at a point when [Mrs Henry] was already (and very understandably) unnerved and distressed by her cancer diagnosis and treatment, adding to her concerns.'
Mrs Henry was awarded a total of £14,195.89 in compensation.
