Case Reference: 1303474/21 | Birmingham Employment Tribunal | Decisions: March 2024 (Liability) and June 2024 (Remedy)
There are cases that remind us that the law in employment is not just about procedure; it is about people. B v Wolverhampton City Council is one of those cases. A woman received a job offer, disclosed a disability, and had that offer taken away. She represented herself throughout a multi-year Tribunal process, and she won. As a result, the Council was ordered to pay over one hundred thousand pounds.
What happened?
B (who was anonymised) applied for a role within Wolverhampton City Council’s housing strategy team. On her application form, she disclosed that she had a disability, though she did not specify what it was at that stage. She was interviewed and, in mid-May 2021, the Council made her a conditional job offer.
During the pre-employment checks that followed, B received a formal diagnosis of autism. She notified the Council of this. By June 2021, just weeks after the offer had been made, the Council withdrew it entirely.
B brought a claim to the Employment Tribunal. She had no legal representation. She conducted the entire case herself. In March 2024, the Tribunal found in her favour on liability and in June 2024, remedy was assessed; the total award came to £100,783.
What claims were brought and what did the tribunal decide?
B brought a claim of disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Employment Judge Jonathan Meichen found comprehensively in her favour. The Tribunal concluded that the Council had formed a bias against B because of her autism diagnosis and had withdrawn the job offer as a direct result of that bias.
The specific findings against the Council were significant. The Tribunal found that the Council had:
- Formed a prejudice against B based on her autism diagnosis and withdrew her job offer as a direct consequence of that prejudice.
- Relied on justifications for the withdrawal that were directly contradicted by their own recruitment documentation.
- Failed to take any meaningful action in response to the occupational health report, which had recommended that the Council set up a meeting with B to discuss her support needs.
- Failed to acknowledge B’s email informing them of her autism diagnosis, which the Tribunal described as “strange”.
The Council attempted to justify its decision by arguing that the role required someone to work predominantly alone and that B, as a people person, would not be suited to it. The Tribunal rejected this entirely. Every piece of recruitment documentation, at the time of the application, emphasised teamwork and communication skills, and the Council’s own witnesses confirmed the job was based in a busy local authority office. The Tribunal found that a people person was, in fact, exactly the profile the role called for and stated: “The failure to acknowledge the claimant’s diagnosis of autism or to take any action in relation to it is at odds with the impression which the respondent has tried to convey to us, i.e. that they are an employer who is positive about employing disabled people.”
What was the award and why?
The Tribunal ordered Wolverhampton City Council to pay B a total of £100,783. The breakdown of that award was as follows.
- Injury to feelings: £22,500
- Past loss of earnings from 2021 to the remedy hearing: £27,057
- Future loss of earnings covering an 18-month period: £32,063
- Other sums including interest and miscellaneous amounts: £19,163
- Total award: £100,783
The injury to feelings award of £22,500 sits within the middle Vento band and applies to serious cases that do not fall into the most extreme category. An award at this level reflects real and lasting harm to a person’s dignity and sense of worth.
B had been out of the role since the offer was withdrawn in June 2021. By the time of the remedy hearing in June 2024, that amounted to approximately three years of lost earnings. The Council was also required to compensate her for a further 18 months of projected future losses, reflecting the ongoing financial impact the discrimination had caused.
What Can Employers Learn from this Case?
This case did not turn on a complicated legal argument. It turned on whether a public sector employer behaved fairly and lawfully after a candidate disclosed a disability, and the answer was clearly no.
- Withdrawing an offer after a disability disclosure is very high risk once a conditional offer has been made, withdrawing it following a disability disclosure is likely to constitute direct disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Pre-employment health checks exist to identify what support an individual may need, not to screen candidates out.
- Silence is never neutral When B emailed to share her diagnosis, the Council did not respond, something the Tribunal described as “strange” and treated as direct evidence of the Council’s attitude toward her autism. When a candidate discloses a disability, acknowledge it promptly, even without having all the answers immediately.
- Occupational health recommendations must be acted upon the occupational health report recommended a meeting with B to discuss her support needs. That meeting never happened. Ignoring professional recommendations demonstrates that the process was followed as a formality rather than in good faith, and it makes an employer’s position considerably worse.
- Rejection reasons must withstand scrutiny The Council’s stated reason for withdrawing the offer was dismantled by their own documentation. Decisions must be honest, clearly recorded at the time, and able to withstand scrutiny.
- Values must be backed by actions, not just statements the gap between what Wolverhampton City Council said about its values and what it did is precisely where this claim arose. Genuine inclusion requires proper training, active management and consistent follow-through at every stage.
How can Thrive Law help?
At Thrive Law, we work with employers who want to get this right. Not just to avoid tribunal claims, but to build genuinely inclusive workplaces where every employee and candidate can thrive.
We can support your organisation with:
- disability discrimination training for HR teams and hiring managers
- pre-employment process reviews to ensure legal compliance and best practice
- reasonable adjustments frameworks and policies
- neurodiversity in the workplace programmes, including autism awareness
- HR and employment law advice and support
Whether you are an SME or a large employer, we can help you build processes that are both legally compliant and genuinely people-centred. Prevention is always better, and significantly less costly, than a tribunal award of over £100,000.
Final thoughts
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals look beyond what organisations say about their values and examine what they actually do. In this case, a single unacknowledged email, a missed meeting and a poorly evidenced rejection rationale resulted in an award of over £100,000 and considerable reputational damage for the Council.
B represented herself throughout. She had no legal team behind her, and she still succeeded, because the facts of the case were clear.
For employers, the message is straightforward. When a candidate discloses a disability or receives a diagnosis during recruitment, respond with care. Acknowledge it, explore what support might be needed, and follow through. That is not just good employment law practice. It is good leadership.
Get in touch
Is your recruitment process disability-inclusive? Speak to the team at Thrive Law today for a confidential conversation about how we can support you.
Email: enquiries@thrivelaw.co.uk
Tel: 0113 869 8100
References and further reading
- Employment Tribunal Judgment: B v Wolverhampton City Council, Case No. 1303474/21, Birmingham Employment Tribunal
- Media coverage: Law360 UK, Autistic Woman Wins £100k Over Withdrawn Job Offer
- Equality Act 2010: legislation.gov.uk
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2002] EWCA Civ 1871: Injury to feelings Vento bands guidance
This blog is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you require specific employment law advice, please contact Thrive Law directly.
