What Happened?
A former HSBC business specialist, Ms A. Brake was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 25 November 2024. HSBC said she had failed to attend her branch in Southgate, north London, on 40 out of 55 required working days between April and July 2024, in breach of their hybrid working policy, which required her to be in the branch in person three days per week.
But behind the attendance figures was a more complex picture. Ms Brake had been experiencing menopause-related symptoms since 2023, including debilitating migraines that forced her to work from a dark, quiet room at home.
She raised her health as a factor during the disciplinary process and provided WhatsApp messages to the disciplinary hearing manager showing she had informed her line manager about migraine episodes. Her appeal was partially successful, with three out of four allegations overturned, but her dismissal was nonetheless upheld on 10 March 2025.The reasoning for this being upheld, was that, whilst some points of appeal were successful, Ms Blake had failed to attend her branch on 40 out of 55 required working days over a four month period, and it was concluded that the scale of that breach alone reasonably amounted to misconduct.
Brake then brought Employment Tribunal claims. A preliminary hearing took place on 20 February 2026 before Employment Judge Yallop sitting at the Southampton Employment Tribunal, with the reserved judgment issued on 7 April 2026.
What Claims Were Brought and What Did the Tribunal Decide?
Ms Brake brought two types of claim:
- Unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, specifically unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (section 15) and failure to make reasonable adjustments
At a preliminary hearing on 7 April 2026, the Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claims. This was because Ms Brake had missed the three-month time limit for bringing the claim and that it had been reasonably practicable for her to bring it in time. The Tribunal found she was aware of the time limit at around the time of her internal appeal hearing on 29 January 2025, and that even if her trade union representative had given incorrect advice, that fault was attributable to her as the claimant.
More interestingly, and significantly for the purposes of employers, Judge Yallop ruled that Ms Brake was a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the period 1 January 2023 to 10 March 2025. Her menopause-related symptoms, including migraines occurring at least twice a month, brain fog, fatigue, light sensitivity, and sleep disruption, had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, including attending the workplace, using a laptop, and interacting with colleagues. Her disability discrimination claims will therefore proceed to a full hearing.
It is important to emphasise that no findings of liability have been made against HSBC at this stage. The full merits of the discrimination claims remain to be determined. The Tribunal has only determined that Ms Brake was disabled under the Equality Act 2010 and that her disability discrimination claims can proceed.
Top 5 Lessons for Employers
- Menopause symptoms canconstitutea disability under the Equality Act 2010.
This ruling reinforces a growing body of case law.; where menopause-related symptoms have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on an employee’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, they will be protected. Employers cannot treat menopause as a lifestyle issue or a straightforward absence problem.
- Attendance management processes must account for disability-related absences.
Ms Brake’s non-attendance was partly caused by migraines linked to her disability. Disciplining an employee for absence or policy non-compliance when that behaviour arises from a disability is exactly the conduct that can lead to a successful section 15 Equality Act claim. Employers should always investigate the underlying reason before taking formal action.
- Reasonable adjustments must be genuinely considered and documented.
The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim remains live and is yet to be determined. In this case, Ms Brake had told her manager about her migraines and had received informal permission to work from home on some occasions. A proactive, documented reasonable adjustments conversation at the right time could have changed the outcome entirely. For more support on how to approach these adjustments, check out one of our latest blogs here! to ensure support is provided to your employees.
- Hybrid working policies must be applied with flexibility.
Provide support to those who need it most. For guidance to support this, refer to our blogs regarding this here!. A blanket application of a hybrid working policy without considering an employee’s medical circumstances carries significant legal risk. Where a disability affects an employee’s ability to attend the workplace, requiring strict compliance with an attendance policy and then discriminating against employers who cannot comply, is likely to constitute a failure to make reasonable adjustments if individuals have expressed their concerns.
- Train your managers to recognise and respond to menopause in the workplace.
Ms Brake had communicated with her line manager about her migraines on multiple occasions. Despite this, formal disciplinary action followed. Frontline managers need the training and confidence to escalate health concerns, involve HR, and explore adjustments before going straight to a disciplinary procedure.
How Can Thrive Law Help?
At Thrive Law, this is exactly the kind of case we are passionate about. We work with employers to build workplaces where people genuinely thrive, and that means getting ahead of issues like this before they reach a tribunal.
We can help your business by:
- Reviewing and updating your menopause policy to ensure it properly reflects your obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the changes within the Employment Rights Act 2025
- Auditing how your attendance management and hybrid working policies interact with disability and reasonable adjustments obligations
- Delivering manager training so your teams can have sensitive, legally sound conversations about health and menopause at work
- Providing strategic HR and legal support when issues arise so you can respond proportionately and lawfully
Prevention is always better than litigation. Get in touch with us today.
Final Thoughts
The Brake v HSBC ruling is a timely reminder that menopause is not a niche issue. Millions of employees in the UK are currently going through perimenopause or menopause, and the law is increasingly clear that employers have real obligations toward them.
The preliminary ruling is a clear signal to employers that menopause cannot be ignored, and attendance cannot be assessed in a vacuum.
Get your policies right. Train your managers. And when an employee tells you they are struggling, listen.
Call to Action and References
Ready to review your menopause and reasonable adjustments policies? Contact the Thrive Law team today for a consultation: enquiries@thrivelaw.co.uk
Or for more information and some snapshots of more support, check out the Jodie Hill – YouTube channel to find clips of case summaries just like this one, employment law and neurodiversity awareness.
Read the full tribunal judgment:
Ms A. Brake v HSBC Bank UK PLC, Case Number 6010261/2025, Southampton Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Yallop, judgment issued 7 April 2026.
Key legislation:
- Equality Act 2010, section 6 (disability definition), section 15 (unfavourable treatment arising from disability), section 20 (duty to make reasonable adjustments): legislation.gov.uk
- Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on disability at work: equalityhumanrights.com
This blog has been written for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you require specific legal advice, please contact Thrive Law directly. The disability discrimination claims in this case have not yet been determined on their merits, and no findings of liability have been made against HSBC.
