Tuesday, 20 October 2026
Light Duties, Long Absences, and the Explanation That Decides Medical Termination Cases
In the previous article, I set out the conceptual framework for medical termination: what it is, why it is different from disciplinary or business termination, and why functional capacity — not illness alone — is what the law actually examines.
This article is about what happens when employers have to make the decision in practice.
The prolonged illness question
Some organisations have formal prolonged illness policies that prescribe an extended period of medical leave before termination can proceed. Others do not.
Neither approach is legally required. There is no general obligation to offer extended medical leave beyond ordinary sick leave entitlements. What matters is whether the employer acted reasonably in the circumstances.
Where a prolonged illness policy exists, it must be applied consistently and only to situations it was actually designed for. Such policies are generally intended for illnesses that may resolve with time, not for conditions that are clearly irreversible from the outset.
For employers without such a policy, the governing principle is not a prescribed number of days. It is reasonableness. Where recovery is medically possible, defined, and reasonably proximate, moving to terminate prematurely carries real risk. Where incapacity has persisted for a long period with no clear end in sight, a careful and documented decision to proceed is far more defensible.
The question, in both cases, is the same: has the employer given this a fair amount of time, assessed the realistic prospects honestly, and documented that assessment?
The light duties risk
Many employers, in a genuine attempt to support an employee whose capacity is reduced, offer temporary light duties or modified work arrangements.
This is generally good practice. It demonstrates reasonableness and a considered approach to a difficult situation.
The risk is what happens if light duties are not managed carefully.
If light duties are assigned for an extended period without a defined endpoint, regular review, or a clear acknowledgment that the arrangement is temporary, those duties can begin to look like the employee’s actual job. If the employer then proceeds to medical termination, the argument becomes harder: if the employee has been performing light duties for two years without complaint, where exactly is the incapacity?
What begins as accommodation can become evidence against the employer’s own position.
Light duties, if offered, should be clearly communicated as temporary, reviewed against medical expectations, and bounded by a defined purpose. The accommodation should support the assessment, not quietly undermine it.
What the termination letter says
In medical termination, the language of the termination letter matters more than most employers realise.
The explanation must be factual, restrained, and focused on capacity and operational reality. It should say nothing that implies blame, moral judgment, or character criticism, even indirectly.
Language that questions commitment, implies weakness, or attributes fault undermines the legitimacy of the termination and invites challenge.
The safest explanation answers one question and only one: can this employment relationship, given what is now known about the employee’s medical situation and its impact on their capacity to perform the role, realistically continue?
That is what belongs in the letter. Nothing more.
The boundary that matters
The principles governing medical termination apply only to termination that is genuinely capacity-based.
Using medical termination logic to avoid a disciplinary process, or a business restructuring exercise, is a misclassification. The risk is not just losing the case. It is losing it on grounds the employer created by applying the wrong framework to the situation.
If the real issue is conduct, address it as conduct. If the real issue is performance, address it as performance. Medical termination is for situations where the real issue is genuinely capacity.
Getting the framework right from the beginning is not just good practice. It is the difference between a decision that holds and one that does not.