A recruitment director has been awarded nearly £188,000 after a tribunal found he was unfairly dismissed following brain damage caused by a cardiac arrest.
Darron Blewitt, formerly of Leeds-based Mach Recruitment, brought a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, which was upheld by an employment tribunal in Cambridge.
Mr Blewitt suffered a cardiac arrest on 7 February 2020, which resulted in hypoxic brain injury – damage caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain. Although he regained his mobility and speech within weeks, his memory, cognitive function and energy levels remained significantly affected.
Describing himself as a “workaholic”, Mr Blewitt returned to his role as southern regional operations director in October 2020, at a time when working practices had shifted significantly due to the pandemic.
His ongoing difficulties with memory and fatigue made the return particularly challenging.
The tribunal heard he was expected to resume duties without tailored support and was “left to his own devices”.
The company’s head of HR, Katie Barrett, was said to have repeatedly cancelled meetings and failed to respond to emails from occupational health professionals.
On 27 September 2022, Ms Barrett phoned Mr Blewitt to say he would be “let go” following a decision to reduce senior team headcount. When he asked if this meant redundancy, she ended the call.
They spoke again two days later, when Ms Barrett told him in a Microsoft Teams call that he was being dismissed with immediate effect on grounds of ill health.
He did not receive payment for his notice period.
Employment judge Roger Tynan found that Mr Blewitt was dismissed not because of restructuring, but because the company saw his condition as time-consuming and difficult to manage and was unwilling to support him.
The judge said Mr Blewitt had been cast aside “in a perfunctory way” and noted the employer had failed to document its concerns, kept no record of meetings with Mr Blewitt, and did not confirm his dismissal in writing. He said this indicated “an organisation that was entirely neglectful of its responsibilities”.
He added: “Stereotypical assumptions were made regarding his ongoing ability to perform his role and contribute. He appears to have been regarded as an inconvenience.”
Mach Recruitment failed to take part in the proceedings after its initial defence was rejected.
Liz Stevens, professional support lawyer at Birketts, said the case showed the consequences of neglecting equality legislation.
She said: “It is clear from the tribunal’s findings that the employer had failed to follow even the most basic procedural steps in this case.
“It had disregarded occupational health advice, failed to document its concerns in writing and kept no records of meetings with the claimant.”
“Crucially, there had been no formal capability process or any warning given of the potential for dismissal. The tribunal was particularly critical of the respondent’s head of HR for these shortcomings.”
She added: “The claimant’s medical condition clearly met the definition of a disability under the Equality Act 2010, meaning that the employer was under a duty to make reasonable adjustments.
“The employer failed in this duty and, as the employment judge highlights in the decision, an employer’s failure to implement reasonable adjustments is a material factor in the fairness of any health-related dismissal.”
