A disability charity has been ordered to pay more than £150,000 to a former employee after an employment tribunal ruled he was unfairly dismissed because of his health conditions.
William Drysdale-Wood, who has lived with Crohn’s disease for much of his life and later developed long COVID, won his case against Shared Lives South West, which supports adults with autism and dementia across the South West.
The tribunal found the charity unlawfully dismissed him and failed to make reasonable adjustments linked to his disability.
Long Service, Then Dismissal
Drysdale-Wood joined the charity in 2015 as a coordinator and was dismissed in September 2023 after two periods of sickness absence.
One absence followed medical advice between November 2022 and January 2023. A later spell, in summer 2023, was linked to what he said was the charity’s failure to adjust his working arrangements.
The tribunal heard the charity had known from the outset that he had Crohn’s disease, a lifelong condition involving fluctuating symptoms and periods of ill health.
After contracting Covid-19 in January 2022, he was later diagnosed with long COVID and chronic fatigue, further limiting his capacity to work consistently.
Charity’s Argument Rejected
The charity argued it had shown “increased tolerance” but said Drysdale-Wood’s absence placed an unreasonable burden on colleagues and that the role could not be done largely from home.
The tribunal disagreed, ruling that his dismissal amounted to unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability.
Compensation Reduced After Review
An initial award of around £167,000 was later reduced following a review of benefit calculations. The final payout stands at £152,745.
Shared Lives South West reported income of £8.6 million in the year to March 2025. The charity previously told Cornwall Live it was disappointed by the ruling.
Editorial Opinion: Outcome, Or Legal Necessity?
The irony is striking. A disability charity has been ordered to compensate a disabled worker for discrimination.
Yet the case also exposes an uncomfortable dilemma.
Was it fair on other staff to absorb additional work during prolonged absences?
Where does reasonable adjustment end and operational strain begin? And should someone continue in a role if they know their condition may require repeated time off?
The law is clear. This ruling settles the legal question, but it leaves questions on work capability wide open.
