Accenture (UK) Ltd

Judgment approved by the Court for handing down Pal v Accenture © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 12 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 12 Case No: EA-2022-001441-DXA EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 19 January 2026 Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER MRS RACHAEL WHEELDON MR STEVEN TORRANCE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : Ms S Pal Appellant - and – Accenture (UK) Ltd Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Elaine Banton (instructed by Kilgannon & Partners LLP) for the Appellant Katherine Eddy (instructed by Lewis Silkin LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 9 December 2025, Chambers 10 December 2025 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the Court for handing down Pal v Accenture © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 12 SUMMARY Unfair Dismissal, Disability Discrimination The Employment Tribunal erred in law in assessing a Polkey reduction by applying an incorrect counterfactual. Dismissal for reasons related to capability, some other substantial reason and Polkey reductions considered. The Employment Tribunal also failed properly to analyse whether the claimant, who has endometriosis, was a disabled person at the material times, and whether she had been subject to discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability. Judgment approved by the Court for handing down Pal v Accenture © EAT 2026 Page 3 [2026] EAT 12 HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER The Issues 1. This appeal raises issues about the correct approach to: 1.1. a Polkey reduction where an employer breaches its procedures 1.2. assessing the likelihood of a fair dismissal where the employer adopts an “up or elsewhere” or “progression based performance model” 1.3. determining whether a person is disabled, in this case be...