Sanju Pal v Accenture UK Ltd - An appeal on endometriosis and the corporate consulting model - Category A in the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 9 and 10 December 2025

GERARD AIREY • September 1, 2025

Share this article

Sanju Pal v Accenture UK Ltd - An appeal on endometriosis and the corporate consulting model - Category A in the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 9 and 10 December 2025
Sanju Pal, a former manager at global management consulting firm Accenture, where she worked for a decade, has been embroiled in a legal battle that will now reach a hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 9 and 10 December 2025. Ms Pal was dismissed in 2019 for alleged underperformance linked to not being ready for promotion (‘the progression-based model’) within the required time at level (‘TAL’) whilst she was suffering with endometriosis. 
No compensation for unfair dismissal
The Employment Tribunal held in May 2022 that Ms Pal was unfairly dismissed due to procedural failures by Accenture. Ms Pal was dismissed using a procedure that was tailored to misconduct dismissals and not capability dismissals. It was found that there were concerns around the investigation process. There were also concerns that the composition of the dismissal panel was outside the terms of the policy used, as the same people who carried out Ms Pal’s dismissal were involved in the said investigation process. 
However, the Tribunal found that there would be no award for Ms Pal’s loss of earnings (‘the compensatory award’) on the basis that if a fair procedure has been used, the same outcome would have been reached. The failure to award loss of earnings is being appealed, alongside the findings that there was no unfairness in dismissing Ms Pal for not being ready for promotion under the progression-based model. One point that will be argued is that prior to dismissal Ms Pal was not placed on a performance improvement plan which appears contrary to one of Accenture’s procedure documents. 
Challenging the progression-based model (“up or out”)
Accenture’s progression-based model in the ‘Client & Market’ career track implies that if an employee isn't deemed to be ready for promotion within a certain period of time at their level, they might face dismissal. Ms Pal argues that this model is unfair in law on the basis that the Employment Rights Act 1996 only permits dismissal relating to underperformance in the position the employee held, not on the basis that an employer thinks an employee is not ready for the job at the next level up. This is an extremely important argument as it will significantly affect the management consulting industry where the progression-based model is widely used as a basis to terminate employees.   
Disability Discrimination due to Endometriosis 
Prior to her dismissal Ms Pal was also suffering from endometriosis, which was diagnosed in September 2018 when Ms Pal underwent surgery for the removal of painful large cysts on her ovaries. Accenture decided to terminate Ms Pal’s employment just 3 months after her phased return to work ended. The Tribunal held that Ms Pal had not proven that her endometriosis had an ongoing substantial effect on her normal day to day activities. It was held also that she had not proved that the substantial effects had lasted or were likely to last more than a year. It was also found that Accenture had no knowledge of disability, nor could it reasonably be expected to have such knowledge.
Ms Pal appeals this decision. Permission to appeal was granted as it is arguable the Tribunal made an error of law in this decision on the basis of the evidence in medical reports, the date of the decision to dismiss and that at the time of Ms Pal’s internal appeal to Accenture in September 2019 she had endometriosis for 12 months. There is documentation to show that a Managing Director at Accenture who was the appeal manager, was aware of Ms Pal’s endometriosis based on what Ms Pal told her and her own investigation into whether endometriosis was a deemed disability. 
CrowdJustice fundraising campaign 
Ms Pal has launched a crowdfunding campaign on CrowdJustice to support her legal fight against the progression-based model and to confirm that her endometriosis was a disability at the time of her dismissal from Accenture. To provide support for her appeal please go to the following link: 
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/accenture-disability-discrimination-endometriosis/  
Ms Pal is represented by Gerard Airey of Kilgannon and Partners LLP and Elaine Banton of 7BR Chambers.

Our expert employment law solicitors all have many years’ experience advising individuals who are in your position. We will be able to guide you through the process and to help you secure the best possible outcome.
We offer a range of services, so please contact our friendly customer services team to discuss further via  hello@kilgannonlaw.co.uk  or  0800 915 7777 .

< Older Post Newer Post >

Recent Posts

Three coworkers reviewing documents at a table in a bright office

Fire and rehire restrictions: what employers need to know ahead of January 2027

By Anthony Thompson • October 22, 2026
New fire and rehire restrictions are expected in January 2027. Discover which contractual changes are affected and how employers can prepare.
Two coworkers reviewing documents at a table with a laptop in a bright office, one pointing thoughtfully

What are the Key Areas Likely to be Impacted by these changes and What Steps Can Employers Take to Prepare for them?

By Nicola Cockerill • October 20, 2026
Explore key employment law changes, the areas they may affect and practical steps employers can take to prepare their business and HR policies.
Three coworkers in a meeting, discussing ideas around a laptop at a conference table.

Unfair Dismissal changes from 1 January 2027: What employers need to do now

September 25, 2026
From 1 January 2027 unfair dismissal protection moves to six months and the compensation cap is removed. See what employers should change now.
Two people talking in a modern office lounge, seated across from each other and holding papers.

The (re)introduction of third-party harassment from 30 October 2026. What the duty means for employers.

September 25, 2026
From 30 October 2026, employers face liability for third-party harassment. Find out what changes and the practical steps businesses should take now.
Three coworkers in discussion at a conference table with a laptop and mugs in a modern office

Employment Rights Act 2025: What the new Sexual Harassment duty means for employers from 30 October 2026

September 25, 2026
From 30 October 2026 employers must take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and address third-party harassment. See what to do now.
A person in a white lab coat and pink gloves holds a small rainbow heart pin, with a stethoscope draped around their neck.

Did the use of NHS changing room by transgender woman give rise to claims for harassment and/or indirect discrimination?

February 3, 2026
Did the use of NHS changing room by transgender woman give rise to claims for harassment and/or indirect discrimination?
A person with long dark hair, wearing a green and orange patterned top, looks toward the camera against a black background.

Tribunal ruling puts ‘up or out’ employment policies under scrutiny

February 3, 2026
The appeal judgment criticised the original tribunal’s handling of both disability and justification issues. The judgment indicates that employers making dismissals based on assessment of readiness for promotion, without the employee having carried out the work for the role above, will struggle to show that decision is
A person smiling at the camera, wearing a green and orange patterned top against a dark, plain background.

Ms Sanju Pal succeeds in appeal against Accenture at the Employment Appeal Tribunal

January 19, 2026
Ms Sanju Pal succeeds in appeal against Accenture at the Employment Appeal Tribunal – Tribunal’s reasoning on disability discrimination due to endometriosis was “wholly inadequate” and the decision could not stand
Two hands wearing rainbow-colored bracelets come together to form a heart shape.

Non-binary identity does not give rise to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

December 18, 2025
A tribunal ruled non-binary identity does not amount to gender reassignment. Learn the legal reasoning and workplace implications with Kilgannon Law.
The Houses of Parliament in London at dusk, with the illuminated Elizabeth Tower reflected in the River Thames.

The dismissal of a cleaner employed in two jobs working 17 hour days was fair

December 11, 2025
A tribunal has held that the dismissal of a cleaner working two jobs and 17-hour days was fair. Learn why the decision was upheld, the key factors considered, and what this means for employers managing fatigue and safety risks.
Show More