London: NatWest Group, one of the United Kingdom’s largest banking institutions, is confronting a potentially landmark legal challenge after a London employment tribunal ruled that it unfairly dismissed an employee who was undergoing treatment for cancer. The claim, which could exceed £2 million (approximately US $2.7 million), highlights growing scrutiny on workplace discrimination and corporate responsibilities under UK employment law.
The case centers on Adeline Willis, a 44-year-old risk and compliance officer who had served NatWest for more than six years. Ms. Willis was diagnosed with bowel cancer eight months prior to her dismissal in 2020. Following her diagnosis, internal communications between her managers and the human resources department discussed ending her secondment and her potential redundancy, citing her forthcoming treatment-related absence. The tribunal described these communications as “clear evidence of discriminatory intent.”
NatWest argued that Ms. Willis’s role had been made redundant and that her dismissal was part of normal restructuring. However, the London Central Employment Tribunal rejected this explanation, noting that her dismissal was “tainted with discrimination.” Under the Equality Act 2010, cancer is legally recognized as a disability from the point of diagnosis. This affords employees protection against unfair treatment or dismissal linked to their medical condition.
The tribunal’s ruling not only carries significant financial implications for NatWest but also raises questions about corporate governance and workplace culture. For a major banking group, a finding of discrimination can have lasting reputational impacts, particularly in sectors where regulatory compliance, employee trust, and public image are closely monitored. The potential damages exceeding £2 million underscore the tangible financial risks of failing to comply with employment and disability protections.
The case also sends a strong message to other UK employers regarding the handling of employees undergoing serious medical treatment. Best practices emphasize transparency, proper documentation, and sensitivity in all employment decisions related to illness, redeployment, secondments, and redundancy processes. The tribunal decision is likely to prompt firms to review HR policies to prevent similar legal and reputational consequences.
NatWest has issued a statement acknowledging the difficult circumstances and confirming it is reviewing the judgment before deciding on the next steps. If the parties cannot reach an agreement on compensation, a further tribunal hearing is scheduled for April 25–26, 2026, to determine the final quantum of damages.
This ruling reinforces that UK law provides robust protections for employees with serious illnesses, and even large institutions cannot disregard these obligations. As NatWest navigates the aftermath, the case is expected to spark broader discussion on how corporations balance operational decisions with legal compliance and ethical responsibility toward staff facing health challenges.