Cancer, Recruitment and Costly Assumptions

July 28, 2026

A care worker, Ms Lana Harber, has successfully brought claims for direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability against Intrinsic Care Group after a job offer was withdrawn shortly before her employment was due to begin. The Employment Tribunal found that the decision was linked to Ms Harber’s breast cancer diagnosis, ongoing treatment and anticipated need for time off for medical appointments.

Background

Ms Harber was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent surgery in March 2023. Following surgery, she commenced hormone treatment and was due to begin radiotherapy in June 2023 into July 2023.

During her treatment, Ms Harber applied for a Service Manager position with Intrinsic Care Group. Following an interview on 28 April 2023, she was informed on 1 May 2023 that she had been successful. As part of the recruitment process, Ms Harber disclosed her ongoing cancer treatment and explained that she would require time off to attend medical appointments.

After completing the necessary pre-employment checks and signing her employment contract on 29 May 2023, Ms Harber was due to commence employment on 19 June 2023.

However, on 9 June 2023, Intrinsic Care Group informed her by email that it was withdrawing the offer of employment, stating that it was “unable to continue with your offer of employment for the Service Manager position”. The company alleged that Ms Harber had failed to engage with attempts to contact her by phone regarding the role.

Ms Harber disputed this explanation. The Employment Tribunal accepted that she had complied with the recruitment process, noting that she had done what was required to secure the role, although she may have progressed matters “slower than she otherwise would have due to her hormone therapy”.

Following the withdrawal of the offer, Ms Harber contacted Intrinsic Care Group seeking an explanation. The Employment Tribunal recorded that she was orally told that her prospective line manager had recently had a baby and lost her mother to cancer and would find supporting Ms Harber “too emotional”. She was also told that directors were concerned the senior and fast-paced nature of the role would be unsuitable for “a cancer sufferer having undergone radiotherapy and hormone treatment”. Ms Harber followed up the conversation by email on 10th June 2023 confirming the understanding given by Intrinsic Care Group for the withdrawal reasons.

Intrinsic Care Group denied that the decision was related to Ms Harber’s health and instead argued that the role was no longer required following an internal restructuring exercise.

However, documents later disclosed in response to a data subject access request revealed several conflicting explanations for the withdrawal of the offer. While one document referred to grammatical errors in Ms Harber’s communications, another internal document from the compliance director to Intrinsics’s HR department provided a different rationale altogether.

Employment Tribunal Decision

Employment Judge Corrigan preferred Ms Harber’s account of events and concluded that the withdrawal of the job offer was directly linked to her disability.

In her judgment, Employment Judge Corrigan stated “I accept Ms Harber’s oral evidence that the reason the job offer was withdrawn was, as she was told on the phone, due to breast cancer, the treatment she was undertaking and the fact she had said she would need some time off.”

The Employment Tribunal found that the withdrawal of the offer amounted to direct disability discrimination, concluding that the decision was driven by assumptions about Ms Harber’s cancer diagnosis and the impact of her treatment on her ability to perform the role.

The Employment Tribunal also upheld her claim for discrimination arising from disability. It found that Ms Harber’s need for time off arose directly from her disability and that Intrinsic Care Group had failed to justify why refusing to accommodate that absence was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Importantly, Intrinsic Care Group had not meaningfully explored whether the required time off could be accommodated through reasonable adjustments before withdrawing the offer.

Ms Harber was subsequently awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings, £4,145.89 for financial losses and £2,586.17 in interest. The total award amounted to £16,732.06.

Lessons for Employers

This case highlights the risks of making employment decisions based on assumptions about an individual’s health condition or disability. Under the Equality Act 2010, cancer is deemed a disability from the point of diagnosis, meaning affected individuals are afforded protection regardless of the severity or ongoing impact of the condition.

Employers should avoid making assumptions about a candidate’s ability to perform a role, future attendance levels or capacity to cope with workplace pressures. Instead, where concerns arise, employers should engage in meaningful discussions and consider whether reasonable adjustments can address any operational challenges.

The decision also underlines the importance of maintaining clear and consistent reasons for employment decisions. The Employment Tribunal placed weight on the various explanations provided by Intrinsic Care Group, which ultimately weakened its defence.

Finally, employers should be mindful of the reputational consequences of discrimination claims. Employment Tribunal judgments are publicly available, and findings that a job offer was withdrawn because of a cancer diagnosis can significantly affect employee trust, employer branding, and future recruitment efforts and employee retention.

How we can help

At Herrington Carmichael, our Employment Team regularly advises employers on disability-related workplace issues and helps organisations navigate complex employment law challenges while minimising the risk of disputes and litigation. We can assist with:

  1. Providing pragmatic advice on complex employee relations issues, including capability concerns, performance management processes and disciplinary matters involving disabled employees;
  1. Defending Employment Tribunal claims and delivering strategic advice throughout the litigation process, from pre-claim negotiations through to final hearings;
  1. Reviewing policies, procedures and workplace practices to ensure legal compliance and reduce the risk of discrimination and other employment-related claims;
  1. Supporting and training managers on how to identify, manage and respond appropriately to disability-related issues in the workplace, including reasonable adjustments and absence management; and
  1. Drafting and negotiating settlement agreements to help employers resolve workplace disputes efficiently and minimise the risk of Employment Tribunal litigation.

For further information, or to discuss the issues raised in this article, please contact a member of our Employment Team.

Darren Smith
Partner, Employment
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights