For employers, the role of Occupational Health (OH) has often been regarded as a “nice to have” — something you involve when things go wrong. Yet a series of recent 2025 tribunal findings show a starkly different reality: neglecting OH involvement, not acting on its recommendations, or failing to treat health-related issues with sensitivity and process can lead to major legal, financial and reputational damage. Below are three cases that highlight this — and the concrete value employers derive from early, meaningful OH engagement.

1. Mr P Walker v Openreach Ltd — How neurodiversity and long-term absence must be managed with OH input

In June 2025, an Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of Mr Walker — finding that his dismissal by his employer Openreach Ltd was unfair and amounted to unlawful treatment arising from disability.

What happened

• Mr Walker had been diagnosed with ADHD (alongside anxiety and depression), which was disclosed to Openreach.
• Occupational Health was eventually consulted in mid-2023, and recommended that he was unfit for his then desk-based role but potentially capable of alternative work (e.g., field engineering, where he had prior experience).
• Despite the OH findings, the employer dismissed him instead of offering a suitable redeployment. On appeal, he was offered a “trainee-level” role far below his prior grade — a solution he reasonably rejected.

Tribunal’s decision and lesson for employers

• The Tribunal accepted Walker was a “disabled person” under the Equality Act 2010.
• It found unfair dismissal and “unfavourable treatment arising from disability” because the employer failed to meaningfully engage with OH recommendations or explore suitable adjustments or redeployment.
• However, the Tribunal did not uphold a claim of direct disability discrimination (i.e., it did not find bias or malice).

Employer takeaway: neurodiversity and long-term absence must be treated as serious disability-related issues, not “conduct problems.” Involving OH early, acting on their recommendations and genuinely considering redeployment or reasonable adjustments is vital to avoid unfair dismissal claims.

2. Blewitt v Mach Recruitment Ltd — Treating ill-health as “inconvenient” is a legal minefield

Another striking 2025 decision saw a former senior director awarded almost £190,000 after his dismissal following a serious illness.

What happened

• In 2020, Mr Blewitt suffered a cardiac arrest, leaving him with a hypoxic brain injury that impaired memory, cognition, caused fatigue and anxiety.
• After some return to work, his employer dismissed him in September 2022, citing “ill-health” — but without meaningful consultation, adjustments or OH involvement.
• The dismissal was done remotely, with no proper process, documentation or follow-up.

Tribunal’s decision and lesson for employers

• The Tribunal found the dismissal unfair and discriminatory. It concluded that management had “wholly failed” to engage in a reasonable process or treat his health needs seriously.
• The high payout (c. £187,585) underscores the financial risk in treating serious health conditions as a nuisance or inconvenience.

Employer takeaway: serious health events — even when they impact senior, long-term staff — must trigger a robust and empathetic OH-driven process. Failure to consult OH or to consider adjustments/redeployment before dismissal can result in very significant tribunal awards.

3. Croner‑i Ltd v Mrs E Neal (2025 Tribunal) — Poor OH handling and generic HR advice is not a safe strategy

In a 2025 judgment involving Croner‑i Ltd, the Tribunal ruled that the employer had discriminated against a disabled employee and unfairly dismissed her.

What happened

• Mrs Neal disclosed a hearing impairment to the employer. Rather than conduct a meaningful consultation or refer her to OH, the employer placed her on a performance plan. (Impact HR)
• There was no real effort to explore “reasonable adjustments” (for example, support with hearing, adjusted workload or communication method).
• She was then dismissed without the employer ever engaging occupational health or documenting a proper process.

Tribunal’s decision and lesson for employers

• The Tribunal found discrimination and unfair dismissal. The “scripted” HR advice or standard dismissal process was insufficient when disability was involved — the employer still carried full liability.
• This demonstrates that outsourcing HR advice or relying on standard procedures does not relieve an employer’s duty under the Equality Act 2010 to consider reasonable adjustments and engage with health concerns properly.

Employer takeaway: generic or outsourced HR guidance — without proactive OH referral or tailoring — is a dangerous shortcut. Employers must treat health disclosures seriously, consult OH where appropriate, and document every step.

The common thread — and what smart employers do differently

What unites these rulings is not the type of illness or impairment involved — but the failure by employers to engage occupational health meaningfully, or to act on OH recommendations properly. The message is clear:

• OH should be consulted promptly, at the earliest practical juncture.
• Recommendations from OH — whether about redeployment, adjustments, or role suitability — should be taken seriously and implemented where reasonable.
• Every step should be documented: meeting minutes, correspondence, decisions, adjustments — all carefully recorded.
• Employers must recognise that “health-related performance issues” are often disability-related, and cannot simply be treated as misconduct or poor performance.

When employers follow these practices, OH becomes more than a box-checking exercise — it becomes a strategic tool to manage risk, retain valued staff, and demonstrate duty of care.

So…

The 2025 tribunal cases show that Occupational Health is not a “nice to have” — it is a critical safeguard against legal risk. Where OH is ignored or undervalued, employers run very real risks: unfair dismissal claims, disability discrimination findings, and substantial financial penalties.

By contrast, employers who embed OH early, act on its advice, and maintain transparent, documented processes are far better equipped to navigate health-related issues effectively and fairly — protecting both their staff’s wellbeing and the organisation itself.