Professional services giant Accenture has asked the Court of Appeal to reinstate a ruling that meant it didn’t have to pay a former manager ‘unfairly dismissed’ compensation.

A former management consultant, Sanju Pal, who worked at the firm for 10 years, was dismissed in July 2019 under Accenture’s ‘up or elsewhere’ progression-based performance model. This framework, standard in professional services firms, means employees must demonstrate that they are progressing toward the next grade level, and failing to stay on a promotion track is treated as underperformance.

Pal received consecutive ‘not progressing’ performance ratings in August 2018 and March 2019, but during that time, she was diagnosed with endometriosis, which is a chronic medical condition that affects the wombs. This led to periods of sickness absence and a phased return to work.

She later filed an employment claim against the firm, alleging unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

In 2022, the Employment Tribunal (ET) agreed that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because Accenture breached its own disciplinary and appeals policy by using a misconduct route and failing to involve independent decision-makers. However, despite finding the dismissal unfair, the ET applied a 100 per cent reduction (known as polkey), resulting in no compensation for lost earnings.

The ET also dismissed her discrimination claim, ruling that her endometriosis did not meet the legal definition of a disability under the Equality Act 2010.

Tribunal errors force new hearing

The case went to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and in January 2026, Judge James Tayler ruled the ET made errors when applying the 100 per cent reduction in compensation. He held that the ET cannot assume an ‘up or out’ policy automatically justifies firing someone who is perfectly capable of fulfilling their current contracted role, so the compensation shouldn’t have been reduced.

The EAT also found the ET’s dismissal of her disability status was “wholly inadequate” and that the ET failed to properly analyse the medical evidence, the impact on her day-to-day activities, and the likelihood of her endometriosis recurring.

Judge Tayler allowed Pal’s appeal and directed that the case be remitted to the Employment Tribunal for a fresh hearing before a different panel.

Following this judgment, Emma Clark, partner and Imogen Dale, associate at Keystone Law, said the ruling “sends a clear message to employers about handling long-term health conditions with care. Employers must look beyond absence statistics and engage meaningfully with reasonable adjustments.”

Following the EAT judgment, Accenture appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking to have the second-highest court in the UK restore the original 2022 Tribunal decision.

The New York-listed firm’s appeal case is before Lord Justice Bean, Lord Justice Baker, and Lady Justice Whipple on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Accenture said in a statement: “The original Employment Tribunal determined that Sanju Pal’s dismissal was on grounds of performance and was not due to her medical condition, or discriminatory reasons.

Subsequent legal proceedings have not changed the Tribunal’s decision, though a new hearing will reconsider some of the issues. As legal proceedings are ongoing, we cannot comment further about the details of the case.”