Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd [2026] – what happens when the Employment Tribunal makes mistakes?

Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd [2026] has been national news recently. This case shows that even the Employment Tribunal (ET) can make mistakes when it comes to disability discrimination and endometriosis. The case arose after Ms Pal, who had worked for Accenture for over 10 years, was dismissed in line with the Respondent’s ‘up or out’ performance model while experiencing significant symptoms, periods of sickness absence, and medical treatment linked to endometriosis.

Employment Tribunal findings

The Employment Tribunal accepted that Ms Pal’s dismissal was procedurally unfair but rejected her disability discrimination claim on the basis that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. While the ET concluded that Ms Pal’s condition did not amount to a disability, it provided almost no meaningful analysis of how her symptoms affected her day‑to‑day activities. It did not engage with the medical evidence, nor did it address the fluctuating and chronic nature of endometriosis or the extent to which it impaired her ability to carry out normal tasks over a sustained period.

Employment Appeals Tribunal findings

Having been unsuccessful in bringing her discrimination claim to the ET, Ms Pal appealed. The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) was sharply critical of the ET’s approach, describing its reasoning as “wholly inadequate” and incapable of standing. It held that a proper assessment requires a detailed examination of whether the condition has a substantial and long‑term adverse effect on the claimant’s day‑to‑day activities, something the ET had entirely failed to do.

The EAT also found that the ET had approached the question of causation too narrowly. It had not properly considered whether Accenture’s treatment of Ms Pal (such as the negative performance assessments and her dismissal) arose in consequence of her condition, her absences, or her need for medical procedures. Instead, the ET appeared to separate those issues artificially, rather than examining the relationship between her health and the alleged unfavourable treatment as the law requires. The EAT held that this part of the decision could not be allowed to stand either and ordered the disability discrimination claim to be fully reheard.

Key points for employers

This case is a timely reminder that conditions such as endometriosis, which may vary in intensity over time, can still amount to a disability if their overall impact is substantial and long‑term. Employers should ensure that decision makers acquire appropriate medical evidence and properly understand it. It is also worth considering reasonable adjustments before taking any action linked to performance, attendance or capability. In this instance, Accenture’s failure to act reasonably ultimately resulted in them losing an unfair dismissal claim, a disability discrimination claim, and incurring the costs of defending three full hearings.

If your in-house human resource or people team is dealing with any dismissal which has potentially complicating factors, we will be happy to provide individual guidance.

How To Contact Us:

To contact a member of our team, you can fill in our online enquiry form, email info@fraserdawbarns.com, or call your nearest office below. If you’d like to speak to a member of our team at one of our offices across Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, visit our offices page.

Wisbech: 01945 461456

March: 01354 602880

King’s Lynn: 01553 666600

Ely: 01353 383483

Downham Market: 01366 383171

This article aims to supply general information, but it is not intended to constitute advice. Every effort is made to ensure that the law referred to is correct at the date of publication and to avoid any statement which may mislead. However, no duty of care is assumed to any person and no liability is accepted for any omission or inaccuracy. Always seek advice specific to your own circumstances. Fraser Dawbarns LLP is always happy to provide such advice.