A recent employment tribunal ruling in Shah v FoodHub Ltd is a cautionary tale for employers: dismissals made in haste, without following proper procedure, can lead to significant financial and reputational damage. As hybrid and remote working continue to reshape the employment landscape, this case underscores the importance of structured processes and procedural fairness.

Background to the case

Tanveer Shah joined Stoke-on-Trent-based FoodHub, an online food ordering platform earning two promotions in under three years to become UK sales team manager – a role that required him to spend most of the week in the field, coaching and mentoring staff.

When FoodHub’s CEO, Adrian Mula, suspected Mr Shah was working remotely from Egypt and neglecting his duties, frustration escalated into an on-the-spot dismissal. He was accused of “illegitimately taking a salary.”

Although the initial dismissal was overturned, Mr Shah was suspended and subjected to a disciplinary process that ultimately ended in the same outcome. At a tribunal, employment judge Maxwell ruled that the process was “little more than a façade” designed to justify the earlier decision. The “unfair” dismissal, coupled with an investigation with “fundamental flaws”, led to its decision to award Mr Shah £61,519.

Why the dismissal was deemed unfair

While the employer had reason to question Mr Shah’s performance, this case investigation contained “fundamental flaws.” Employers must demonstrate that their investigation was reasonable in all circumstances, even when misconduct appears obvious. This includes:

• Presenting the full substance of allegations clearly.
• Allowing the employee time to respond.
• Substantiating claims with evidence, such as witness interviews, relevant documents, performance reviews, and timelines.
• Capturing all evidence, including that which may refute allegations.

Purposefully omitting key information could be considered as skewing the investigation’s results in favour of a predetermined result.

The importance of impartiality

Ensuring the investigator is not also the decision-maker is critical, and each role and procedural step should be clearly signposted. Depending on the size and structure of the business, this could involve HR or a senior manager with no prior involvement.

FoodHub blurred these lines. The HR Manager investigated and questioned Mr Shah at the disciplinary hearing, failed to gather testimony from colleagues who could have corroborated Mr Shah’s work, and did not disclose key evidence before the hearing. Mr Shah’s “unblemished good service” was also overlooked – something that should be considered when deciding any sanction.

Judge Maxwell concluded the process “failed even the minimum standards of fairness expected of a reasonable employer.”

Lessons for employers

The absence of HR early in this case is telling – a measured process could have prevented legal risk. Instead, HR’s late involvement became reactive, attempting to retrofit fairness into an unfair process.

To avoid similar pitfalls, employers should:

• Make HR consultation mandatory before taking first steps in response to misconduct.
• Implement a ‘cooling-off’ period before serious decisions.
• Provide training for managers on disciplinary procedures, communication skills, and de-escalation techniques.

Hybrid working and unclear expectations

This case also exposes how unclear expectations around remote and hybrid working can fuel misunderstanding. Since 2020, many employers have adopted flexible patterns but failed to standardise policies.

Employers must implement set policies that clearly define expectations, ensuring they:

• Specify where employees can and cannot work, especially abroad.
• Set approvals processes for temporary overseas working.
• Outline reporting and performance expectations in remote contexts.
• Consult staff before operational changes that affect contractual terms.

This will help employees understand their responsibilities and encourage transparent, open communication.

Final thoughts

As hybrid working continues to reshape employment relationships, the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and procedural integrity remain non-negotiable. Even with substantial reason for dismissal, structured processes protect both employees and organisations from legal and reputational risk. By embedding this culture of trust and transparency, organisations can ensure that integrity is consistently reflected in decisions and practices.

How we can help

If you’re concerned about disciplinary procedures, remote working policies, or mitigating unfair dismissal risks, our employment law specialists can provide practical, tailored advice.

As more organisations push for a return to the office, the move is not without resistance. Earlier this year, a group of civil servants took industrial action in response to the closure of six offices and the introduction of strict attendance policies. While employers are legally entitled to restrict working from home, or stop it entirely, doing so without careful planning can carry significant risks.

Recruitment and retention challenges

One of the most pressing concerns is the potential impact on recruitment and retention. A survey by Kahoot! found that 34% of professionals aged 25-34 would be more likely resign if they were required to work in the office more, and among 18–24-year-olds, the figure is similar at 29%.

For many in these age groups, remote or hybrid working is all they’ve known, making a full-time return to the office a difficult adjustment. The risk of talent loss is therefore particularly high among younger workers, as well as among those with accessibility needs or childcare responsibilities, for whom flexible working is a necessity.

Legal considerations and policy implementation

Although every employee now has the right to request flexible working from day one of employment, this does not prevent employers from requiring office attendance. By the time a policy’s been introduced, the business rationale behind the change should have already been laid out which, if having properly considered all the usual potential discrimination risks, will pre-empt complaints and enable employers to justify any likely refusal of flexible working requests.

Before implementing changes, it’s essential to review employment contracts, particularly clauses relating to place of work and core hours. If a previously remote employee is to be brought back into the office, this may constitute a contractual change requiring formal agreement.

Avoiding legal pitfalls

Employers must also review existing policies, such as those covering remote or agile working. A heavy-handed approach could lead to claims of unfair dismissal or discrimination, especially from employees with protected characteristics. To mitigate these risks, a thorough consultation process should be undertaken. This allows concerns to be addressed early and helps ensure that employees feel heard and supported.

Communication is key

Clear, honest communication is vital. Employers should explain the reasons behind any changes and highlight the benefits of office-based work, such as improved collaboration, stronger workplace culture, and better training opportunities for junior employees. Encouraging open dialogue and addressing concerns can help ease the transition and reduce resistance.

Taking a phased approach

Where policies are not well received, employers could backtrack and take a less hardline approach by adopting a more structured agile working policy instead of forcing full office attendance. For example, introducing a structured hybrid model – such as two days in the office per week – can help ease employees back into office life. This phased return can be particularly effective for junior workers, who may come to appreciate the benefits of in-person collaboration over time.

However, phased returns can introduce complexity. Employers must be careful not to create a two-tier workforce, where some employees feel unfairly treated. Consistency is key to maintaining morale and avoiding internal tensions.

Managing expectations with care

There will always be exceptions, particularly for those with accessibility needs. These must be handled sensitively and in line with data protection and privacy laws. This is why a thorough consultation process is essential before implementing changes, as it provides an opportunity to pre-empt all these factors and ensure a smooth transition.

Taking a strategic and sensitive approach

With the Office for National Statistics reporting that 41% of degree-educated Britons currently work from home at least some of the time, bringing employees back into the office is no small task. Employers must approach this carefully, focusing on the positives of in-person working and ensuring that any policy changes are implemented fairly and transparently.

A well-managed consultation process not only reduces legal risk but also helps foster a more engaged and resilient workforce.

How we can help

Our team of employment lawyers can provide clear, practical guidance on updating your workplace policies while minimising legal risk. From reviewing contracts and policies to advising on consultation processes and discrimination considerations, we ensure your approach is compliant and fair.

A recent employment tribunal decision has highlighted the complexities surrounding what constitutes a ‘reasonable adjustment’ for neurodivergent employees.

Ms Khorram, a Cloud Technologist with over 25 years’ experience, worked for technology services company Capgemini. During her probation period, she disclosed that she was taking ADHD medication, which was affecting her ability to carry out day-to-day tasks.

In response, Capgemini arranged an occupational health assessment, which recommended that the team attend a training seminar on working with individuals with ADHD. However, the seminar was never delivered after Ms Khorram expressed discomfort at being required to attend herself. The company also failed to implement coaching sessions aimed at enhancing communication between HR at Capgemini and Ms Khorram. These oversights were deemed by the tribunal to constitute a failure to make reasonable adjustments, and Ms Khorram was partially successful in her claim.

This case raises important questions about what employers must do to support neurodivergent employees and how to ensure that adjustments are both reasonable and effective.

Understanding reasonable adjustments

Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals with a ‘significant impairment’ that substantially affects their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities may be considered disabled. Employers are legally required to consider and implement reasonable adjustments for such employees.

The aim of these adjustments is to remove or reduce barriers, support coping strategies, and provide tools that enable neurodivergent employees to thrive. This recognises that while an individual may face challenges in some areas, they may excel in others—and with the right support, can perform effectively.

Examples of reasonable adjustments

Examples of reasonable adjustments for employees with ADHD or similar conditions might include:

• Additional reminders for deadlines, especially when multiple deadlines are due in a short timeframe.
• Extended time to complete tasks.
• Consideration of workload to avoid excessive multitasking.
• Frequent breaks from the workspace.
• Advance notice of social events.
• Regular one-to-one sessions with managers to encourage open communication.
• Standing desks to improve focus and reduce restlessness.

In Ms Khorram’s case, the tribunal found that Capgemini failed to provide achievable tasks, did not deliver ADHD awareness training, and neglected to implement coaching sessions – despite these being recommended by occupational health.

Being a supportive employer

Supporting neurodivergent employees begins with understanding, open communication, and tailored support. Many individuals may be undiagnosed or choose not to disclose their condition. Employers should avoid pressuring employees into disclosure and instead foster a culture of trust where individuals feel safe to share their needs.

Confidential conversations can be particularly helpful when performance concerns arise. Employers may also benefit from engaging with neurodiversity-focused charities to better understand how to approach these conversations with empathy and discretion.

When a condition is disclosed, an occupational health assessment can provide valuable guidance. However, as this case shows, it’s not enough to commission a report – employers must act on its recommendations.

In Ms Khorram’s situation, the failure to follow through on suggested coaching and the imposition of additional objectives despite known difficulties with multitasking were key factors in the tribunal’s decision.

Embedding neurodiversity into workplace culture

To create a psychologically safe and inclusive environment, employers should consider team-wide training on neurodiversity as part of broader diversity and inclusion efforts. This avoids singling out individuals and helps build a culture of understanding.

In this case, both Ms Khorram and Capgemini’s HR team agreed that training could have been beneficial. However, because the session was framed as a response to her diagnosis, she declined to attend – and therefore the training was never delivered. The tribunal found this to be a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

This highlights the importance of designing training that is inclusive by default, rather than reactive or individualised in a way that may cause discomfort.

Becoming truly inclusive

Creating an inclusive workplace requires more than compliance – it demands proactive engagement. Employers must tailor adjustments to individual needs, maintain open lines of communication, and act on expert recommendations. As this case demonstrates, failure to do so can have legal consequences and damage trust.

Embedding neurodiversity awareness into broader inclusion strategies helps create a culture where all employees feel supported and valued.

If you’re an HR professional looking to better support your neurodivergent employees, we can help you navigate your legal obligations and implement best practices. Get in touch today to discuss how we can support your organisation in building a more inclusive workplace.