In July 2025, an employment tribunal awarded £232,903.34 to Kelly Ruddock, a medical secretary who resigned after her NHS Trust placed her in a ward-based role she was physically unable to undertake - and then failed to redeploy her to a suitable alternative she was qualified for. This article sets out what happened, what the law requires, and what organisations of every size can learn from it.
What Happened
Kelly Ruddock had worked as a medical secretary at Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust since July 2017. She lived with fibromyalgia - a chronic condition causing musculoskeletal pain - and ongoing back problems following a car accident. Her back spasms could leave her unable to move for up to 30 minutes at a time.
In June 2021, an administrative review consultation began. The outcome was that Ruddock's role would become predominantly ward-based. On 1 July, she raised her concerns directly with management, explaining that working on a ward could cause a significant worsening of her symptoms. An occupational health referral was not made until 16 July - two weeks later.
On the same day as the referral, Ruddock was interviewed for a senior carers' pathway administrator role that was not ward-based and that she met the essential criteria for. She was not appointed. The Trust instead promoted another candidate, in a decision the tribunal found was not in line with the Trust's own redeployment policy - which stated that employees requiring redeployment should be given pre-consideration where they meet the essential criteria.
In correspondence, a senior manager made comments implying Ruddock had previously been working on wards without difficulty - a suggestion the tribunal characterised as an implicit claim that she was exaggerating or making a false claim about her disability.
The occupational health report, received on 29 July, confirmed that Ruddock's concerns about ward-based work were valid and that adjustments were needed. By that point, it was too late. Ruddock formally rejected the ward-based role, stating the Trust had chosen to disregard her health and welfare. She resigned in September 2021 and took up a temporary position elsewhere.
The Bury St Edmunds tribunal ruled that she had been discriminated against and constructively dismissed. She was awarded £232,903.34 - including £230,029.98 for discrimination.
What the Tribunal Said
The panel's comments in this case are worth reading carefully, because they go beyond the legal findings and speak directly to how this situation could have been avoided.
“This is deeply regrettable in the circumstances of this case because, had the claimant been told this, none of these problems would have arisen, this tribunal case would almost certainly not have been necessary and the claimant would have been able to continue to be employed in the role that she had previously undertaken and clearly enjoyed.”Employment Tribunal panel, Ruddock v Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
“This would have been established had there been proper communication and, in particular, a proper discussion about the claimant's role, her disabilities and how the role could be adjusted to address the disadvantages that she clearly suffered as a result of her disabilities.”Employment Tribunal panel, Ruddock v Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
The panel's point is stark: during the tribunal itself, the Trust's own witnesses acknowledged that Ruddock could in fact have continued in her previous role with adjustments. That information had never been communicated to her. A conversation that could have kept a valued employee in post - and avoided a six-figure tribunal award - never happened.
What the Law Requires
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments when a disabled employee is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non-disabled colleague. This duty is proactive - it does not wait for an employee to formally request an adjustment or to reach crisis point.
In this case, the Trust knew about Ruddock's disabilities. She had raised her concerns explicitly. Occupational health confirmed those concerns were valid. And yet the process continued in a direction that placed her in an impossible position.
Employment lawyers commenting on the case have highlighted several key lessons:
- Obtain medical evidence early - and act on it. Amanda Trewhella of Freeths noted that once an employer has received occupational health advice, it is critical to act on that advice. The Trust received the report after Ruddock had already been placed in an impossible position.
- Redeployment must follow your own policy. The Trust had a redeployment policy that provided for pre-consideration of employees who met essential criteria for available roles. It did not apply that policy. That inconsistency was central to the tribunal's findings.
- Communication is not optional. Jayne Holliday of Higgs noted that in complex, long-running situations involving multiple managers, one person should have oversight of the whole picture - and when deadlines are missed or decisions made, the employee must be kept informed.
- When you cannot agree to an adjustment, explain why. When an employer cannot agree to an adjustment request, it should communicate the reasons clearly and with supporting evidence. In this case, the implication that Ruddock was exaggerating her symptoms - with no supporting basis - was both inaccurate and harmful.
Three Things This Case Makes Clear
1. A disability does not have to be invisible to be overlooked.
Ruddock's conditions were known to her employer. She had disclosed them. She had raised her concerns about the new role directly. And still the process moved forward in a way that failed to account for her needs. Awareness of a disability is not the same as actively managing its implications. Employers need a process that ensures disclosure leads to action - not just acknowledgement.
2. Your redeployment policy is only as good as your willingness to apply it.
The Trust had a policy that, if followed, would have given Ruddock pre-consideration for the alternative role she was qualified for. That policy was not followed. Policies that exist on paper but are not consistently applied in practice offer no protection - legally or culturally. Managers need to know what the policies say and have the confidence and authority to apply them.
3. The most expensive outcome is often the one that was easiest to avoid.
The tribunal made clear that a single, proper conversation about Ruddock's role, her disabilities, and how her work could be adjusted would - in all likelihood - have prevented this entire case. The cost of that conversation: nothing. The cost of not having it: £232,903.34, a constructive dismissal finding, and the loss of an employee who clearly wanted to stay.
How TWIC Can Help
At TWIC - The Workplace Inclusion Consultancy - we work with HR teams and organisations to build the processes, capability, and confidence needed to get reasonable adjustments right - before they become a problem.
Our Leading Minds training programme gives managers the knowledge and practical skills to handle disability disclosure, reasonable adjustment conversations, and redeployment situations with clarity and confidence. It is built for real workplaces, not compliance exercises - and it focuses on the conversations that actually prevent situations like this one.
We also offer a Policy Review service that audits your existing HR and people policies - including redeployment and reasonable adjustment processes - to identify where the gaps and inconsistencies are before a tribunal does.
And our free interactive reasonable adjustments platform gives managers and HR teams access to over 100 practical adjustments to consider, searchable by condition or situation - a starting point for any manager unsure of what a reasonable adjustment might look like in practice.
Free resource: Explore over 100 practical reasonable adjustments on our free Reasonable Adjustments platform - searchable by how a condition impacts someone at work.
A Final Thought
Kelly Ruddock enjoyed her job. She wanted to keep working. The Trust's own witnesses confirmed - during the tribunal - that she could have done so, with adjustments.
That is the detail that stays with you. Not the award figure. Not the legal findings. The fact that someone who wanted to stay - could have stayed - if only the right conversation had happened at the right time.
Reasonable adjustments are not complicated. They do not require specialist knowledge or significant resource. They require awareness, a clear process, and managers who are equipped to have the right conversation.
If you would like to talk through how TWIC can help your organisation build that capability, we would love to hear from you. You can get in touch here or email us at hello@theworkplaceinclusionconsultancy.com.