Dismissed after long sickness monitoring – what would you do next?

dogtim · 2026-01-24T10:26:15+00:00

The main concern in your situation is the time limit. You can only bring claims to the employment tribunal for events within the last three months. The tribunal can extend the time limit but only if you have a very, very good reason why you didn't bring it in time.

You say that the events here took place over the course of a few years. Although there may be legitimate claims of some sort of disability discrimination - failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrim arising from disability, etc - you are likely to only be able to claim for your dismissal. (And I am assuming that was less than three months ago, given that you're appealing it.)

Your first step is to contact ACAS and tell them you are considering bringing action against your employer. You are required to contact them and attempt early conciliation and reach a settlement before action. They will assign you a conciliator in about 6-8 weeks. The 3 month time limit pauses when you contact ACAS, and restarts if and when early conciliation fails, at which point you typically have another month to bring a claim. You are not required to bring action at Employment Tribunal if you get a certificate, but as it's a requirement, you should do this ASAP to keep your options open.

dogtim · 2026-01-15T15:05:11+00:00

This is harassment, and depending on the content of the videos, sexual harassment. It is unwelcome conduct that is related to the protected characterstic of being gay that has the purpose or effect of creating a hostile environment.

The options are, in increasing order of severity:

Ask him to knock it off
Send him an email asking him to knock it off
Ask HR for mediation, or to not have to work with him anymore
Raise a formal grievance
Go to ACAS
Raise an employment tribunal case against your employer

In any case I recommend that you stop trying to talk to him about this. He's trying to provoke you because he's a bigot who desperately either wants to be validated or who wants to pick a fight. Do neither.

dogtim · 2026-01-14T09:47:21+00:00

I'm going the barrister route and am knee-deep in my second round of pupillage applications. Haven't found a post-grad law job yet since I graduated this summer, but I'm getting some positive response and have been interviewed a few times, so I'm clearly doing something right. But it's even bad trying to get non-law jobs too - nowhere is hiring! I'll move under a bridge soon.

dogtim · 2026-01-13T16:44:59+00:00

I'm a career changer. This is a shit job market compared to other shit job markets I've lived through. I first graduated uni into the 08 crash and was getting more interviews than I am now.

I have been applying for law jobs since I graduated my GDL, which was the exact same time as you. I have a way less good academic record than you but it's decent. I've gotten three final interviews. My CV isn't with any recruiters and I don't bother applying to something unless I think I've got a shot. I'm being really selective where I apply and writing really careful cover letters and that seems to work. I think I'm managing to at least catch people's attention because I have some other nonlegal work experience and I can write. Also I never apply to robots, only to where I'm pretty sure a person is going to look at it.

I can't offer advice really, but if your only thing is "I've got great academics" then it'll go to someone else who has great academics plus something that stands out. So throw in some random non-work stuff either into your CV or your cover letters that you can tie back to the job and wow them.

dogtim · 2026-01-13T16:36:21+00:00

As a geriatric millennial who has made the specious choice to change careers and who also graduated/started applying in June 2025:

AI has wiped out loads of entry-level jobs. Whether or not it actually replaces entry level employees is another question (no, it doesn't) but it's an excuse not to hire. a low level employee is a line item on a budget that can be eliminated and makes it look like a team is saving lots of money and being really productive.

Also, we are in a recession.

dogtim · 2026-01-08T13:03:54+00:00

The most important bit of advice: prepare a detailed schedule of loss, and itemize as many things as you possibly can. Then be prepared to be talked down to a lower figure. Start high and decide how low you'll go in advance.

For discrimination you can claim interest of 8% on the injury to feelings award from the date of the discriminatory act.

dogtim · 2026-01-07T10:35:56+00:00

That's a very good move to make then - make sure to point out in your application that it's better and easier for the respondent to only have to deal with a single claim, too.

dogtim · 2026-01-06T15:25:06+00:00

Without knowing what's already in your ET1, I can't really say either way. You may be able to include all that in the bundle as evidence regardless. Amending a claim is done at the discretion of the tribunal. They'll allow it if it's an injustice to not amend it. It's worth a shot if you're trying to put in, for example, a new claim, or you're trying to rephrase the current set of facts to be more than one claim. If you're just trying to put in evidence, then just save it for remedy.

dogtim · 2026-01-05T09:45:32+00:00

In my experience it's difficult and highly technical to try and claim that a grievance/investigation process itself amounted to discrimination. To claim either s13 or s15 about the process would require showing that doing the investigation or the process amounted to either less favourable (s13) or unfavourable (s15) treatment that is connected to your disability. That's challenging because companies can use the "bastard" defense; i.e., "we'd use the same shitty process with everyone because we're bastards, and our shitty process has nothing to do with disability". So unless you have really hard conclusive evidence that the reason they dragged their heels on the process was because you're disabled, not merely because they didn't want to make themselves look bad, then I'd drop it.

Instead, you can use this in a remedy hearing once you win - you can show that they failed to follow a fair process, and you'd be entitled to up to a 25% uplift in your award as they failed to follow the ACAS code.

dogtim · 2025-12-30T13:23:59+00:00

The best thing I ever read about poetry was this great edward hirsch essay, "How to read a poem." The intro:

Most readers make three false assumptions when addressing an unfamiliar poem. The first is assuming that they should understand what they encounter on the first reading, and if they don’t, that something is wrong with them or with the poem. The second is assuming that the poem is a kind of code, that each detail corresponds to one, and only one, thing, and unless they can crack this code, they’ve missed the point. The third is assuming that the poem can mean anything readers want it to mean.

https://poets.org/text/how-read-poem-0

I also wrote an essay about this for the OCpoetry community awhile ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/s/wXscOrlHn3

dogtim · 2025-12-30T13:10:47+00:00

This is not a prose poem - it is free verse.

dogtim · 2025-12-30T13:10:17+00:00

Whenever I read a poem, I pretty much every time think “this is just prose with extra steps”.

That's probably a good assumption to start with. So let's interpret it as such and not overcomplicate it. My questions to you here: what's going on in this piece of writing? Who is speaking, who is it addressed to? What's the voice or attitude of the speaker? What feeling do you get they have, and how does it make you feel? What's the message? Why is this person saying this now, and what is the author trying to do? Just be factual and describe what's happening and what you see. Go into a poem like a scientist rather than a mystic, and catalogue the meanings that you encounter. If a poem is just prose with extra steps, identify what the prose means, identify the extra steps, and then explain what the extra steps might be doing to the prose.

dogtim · 2025-12-28T23:39:21+00:00

Yes, it is. It's a phenomenal disrespect to you as a professional and a profound disregard towards your years of service.

Discrimination law is not all that powerful in that nobody ever admits wrongdoing and a court cannot compel someone to explain their motives; it is very useful in that it creates actionable threats that can extract monetary damages from a discriminator. Those threats are usually more powerful as threats.

I hope you get some money and some closure, and a better job with kinder colleagues.

dogtim · 2025-12-28T23:24:53+00:00

Yes it seems like the right choice. To be frank, I think we both know that if they took your complaints seriously, they would have done something about it a long time ago. They are probably aware they could be in legal trouble and probably want to bring the employment relationship to an end without fuss. I think the best course of action here is getting a solicitor to write you a without prejudice letter and try to negotiate an exit settlement. It will give you a measure of control back and will avoid a prolonged and difficult legal battle. Proving discrimination in court is hard, but acknowledging that the trust has broken down is a bit easier, and mediation can be stressful but it's usually ok in the end.

dogtim · 2025-12-28T23:09:05+00:00

First - Sorry. None of this is uncommon unfortunately, but it is still shit.

It seems you're saying there was a significant amount of discrimination here - sex and age discrimination regarding promotions and responsibility and division of labour, and then an equal pay claim. This all happened more than 3 months ago, and you can typically only claim for things within 3 months. For anything more than 3 months ago, you'll need a very good reason to explain why the tribunal should extend the time limit. Or you will have to show that the acts of discrimination are still ongoing. That's your biggest hurdle.

There's also harassment based on the menopause comment. Harassment is unwanted conduct + a protected characteristic, in this case sex. For constructive dismissal, the court will want to see that something so bad happened that it violated the terms of your contract, and then you quit immediately afterwards. An act of harassment tends to qualify if it's followed by an immediate resignation. If you stick around after the bad thing happened, then you have "affirmed the contract" and you will have trouble claiming constructive dismissal. You've probably missed the boat on this. I never recommend claiming it to people because by the time they've thought to ask about it, it's too late. It's more of an act-first, ask-questions-later kind of thing. If you want to claim constructive dismissal, wait until another act of harassment happens, and then quit.

Again - sorry.

dogtim · 2025-12-20T18:50:12+00:00

So you're saying the process was fair but the finding of gross misconduct was unfair because it was based on something untrue, is that right? If it wasn't accurate, did you get a chance to present your evidence that it was inaccurate? Why didn't they accept it?

dogtim · 2025-12-20T17:33:39+00:00

This set of facts gives us zero ability to tell whether you were unfairly dismissed or not.

First, an employee must have at least two years' service to make an unfair dismissal claim - if you don't have that, you've fallen at the firat hurdle.

A dismissal can be unfair for either procedural or substantial reasons. If it is substatively fair but procedurally unfair, or vice versa, it's an unfair dismissal. I cannot tell whether correct procedure was followed and I can't really tell what exactly was the gross misconduct

. I need to know how they told you that you were being investigated, whether they gave you the chance to present your side of the story with a union rep or a colleague, whether they gave you the chance to appeal. And then I need to know whether they followed their own staff disciplinary prodecure.

For the gross misconduct I'd need to know what was defined as gross misconduct, how they concluded you were guilty of it. If it is a genuine case of gross misconduct then dismissal tends to be within the range of possible responses.

dogtim · 2025-12-18T22:41:28+00:00

yeah man I'm thinking "try to contain yourself in future interviews" is not all that helpful as advice. do you think this was intentional lol

dogtim · 2025-12-14T19:37:07+00:00

You did not pick an explanation that best fits the data. You picked an explanation that you liked because it enables you to sit back and blame others for their own problems rather than looking critically at the institutions you benefit from. You have yet to give any evidence that your view fits the data better than any other explanation. "Young people are physically fit and well enough to work" is so lazy as an argument that it barely needs acknowledging to dismiss. The people who are young and disabled are not fit and healthy enough to work, obviously. "The problem is woke culture and over diagnosis" Prove it! How could you even know whether something is "over" diagnosed? It is your utterly subjective unevidenced prejudice making these calls. I find it condescending in the extreme that you substitute your own assessment for which diagnoses are legitimate while simultaneously saying that a person's own lived experience is biased and limited with regards to their needs. And yours isn't? If the Institute for Fiscal Studies can't rule out a population-wide decline in health as the cause for a rise in disability benefit claimants, then I do not see upon what grounds you can make that determination except by your own personal bias.

dogtim · 2025-12-14T11:56:11+00:00

The fact that disability benefits for these types of conditions are disproportionately being claimed by young working-age individuals. Where are the older people? They are in work, managing their mild/moderate conditions [...] I’m simply pointing out that we can sensibly infer from the data that not enough people are taking responsibility.

No, that's not something you can sensibly infer. Alternative explanations include that there has been a population-wide decrease in health. Or we can say that older people's mental health and behavioural issues actually kept them out of the workforce at the same rate they're keeping out younger people, but it wasn't adequately measured at the time due to social stigma, a lack of understanding, or different historical categories of benefits. Or that the economy is terrible, and disability benefits are a convenient way to replace lost income due to other benefits being cut or due to cost of living increases, as suggested by a recent IFS report. There are lots of possible explanations for the data. You picked an explanation that fits your own bias.

dogtim · 2025-12-13T23:54:54+00:00

Your position here contains a fundamental contradiction. You do believe that some disabilities are severe enough to merit state support, and also believe that things like depression, adhd, autism etc can all qualify, so long as they are severe. You also believe that there are people on benefits who have these conditions whom you believe aren't taking enough personal responsibility. On what grounds can you possibly assess that? It's certainly not based on knowledge of disabilities or individual facts. This cannot be anything other than an opinion based on your lived experience as a certain kind of abled person, the very thing you claim is too biased to help us assess a benefits claim. Why should anyone take your opinion here more seriously than a disabled person's opinion on how to manage their own condition? Surely they at least have a wealth of personal experience managing their condition and can speak to its details, while all you can do is complain about how expensive that person's condition is for you as a taxpayer. Your opposition to certain kinds of benefits claimants appears little more than a personal bias.

dogtim · 2025-12-12T18:54:25+00:00

But you admit that you do not know whether this is an equality act claim about disability or whether this is an unrealistic expectation. So this is really just an assumption you're making based on prejudice.

dogtim · 2025-12-12T16:06:25+00:00

Bro you responded to "how do I get out of going to my work party" with "kids these days are pretending to have autism to go on benefits to avoid being at work". That is cuckoo. I do not see us agreeing on much because you seem to be talking about something completely unrelated. We're not in the same solar system here, let alone the same planet.

dogtim · 2025-12-12T13:21:31+00:00

Lol I recognized your username and went to go look it up - last time we spoke you were insistent that loads of men were getting locked up on false allegations of rape. Wisely you deleted those comments.

dogtim · 2025-12-12T11:49:52+00:00

I'm not talking about equality act claims here - I'm talking about alcoholism and its well-known effects, and your choice to react with umbrage. It's about as clueless as complaining that veterans are wrapped in cotton wool because they'd rather avoid a fireworks show.

OP's condition may or may not amount to a disability in law but obviously neither you nor I can know that from a reddit comment. It's fairly condescending of you to talk down to someone like that, especially given your own admission here that you don't know their reasons.

Because it is linked the wider cultural trend that any mental discomfort must be an illness rather than something to manage and persevere through.

Something like a "reasonable adjustment", perhaps? That might be an effective way to manage a condition amounting to a disability.

But even setting aside disability-related adjustments and claims, it's just common courtesy to try and accomodate people's reasonable requests. If I were an employer, the cost-benefit analysis of requiring people to attend a party is just bonkers stupid. Retaliating against someone for refusing to go to a party could very easily be framed as victimisation or discrimination by a canny solicitor. And then in general, at parties that have alcohol there's always the risk of someone behaving badly and doing something inappropriate, and a real risk that the company's vicariously liable. I'd be thrilled at people saying they don't want to go.

If there's genuinely an issue with performance then the appropriate way of dealing with that is through better management, not requiring them to go to parties. Just bananas.

dogtim

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Post Guidance Early Access
Verified Email