share on
Singapore’s Employment Claims Tribunals found that an international school’s failure to reasonably accommodate a long-serving employee’s medical needs left her with no practical choice but to resign after returning from cancer treatment.
A woman who resigned from an international school following a dispute over flexible work arrangements, to accommodate her post cancer, has been awarded S$20,000 after the Employment Claims Tribunals found that she had been forced to resign and was dismissed without just cause or excuse.
The claimant, identified as JJH in the grounds of decision, had worked for the school for 17 years as an administrative assistant in its music department.
She returned to work in June 2025 after undergoing treatment for stage three nasopharyngeal cancer but continued to experience side effects that affected her ability to work as she had before. The tribunal found that the school subsequently failed to take reasonable care of her health and safety, including by refusing to properly consider a flexible working arrangement recommended by a doctor.
Cancer survivor returned to work with light-duty recommendation from doctor
The claimant completed chemotherapy and radiotherapy in December 2024. Her oncologist assessed her as fit to return to work on 26 June 2025, after her cancer went into remission.
However, the tribunal noted that being fit to return to work did not mean she had fully recovered.
The claimant continued to experience fatigue, joint pain and weakness in her hands. Her oncologist recommended light-duty work, while an occupational therapist at the Singapore Cancer Society (SCS) rehabilitation clinic recommended that she avoid handwriting where possible, refrain from carrying heavy items and take short breaks during the day.
She had also been attending rehabilitation sessions at the SCS clinic twice a week since April 2025, alongside daily exercises and stretches as part of her recovery.
When she returned to work on 26 June, it was during the school’s summer vacation and staff were working from home.
The arrangement worked well for the claimant as it allowed her to attend rehabilitation sessions, keep up with her exercises and take the breaks she needed.
School later required employee to work on campus five days a week
The situation changed when the school term resumed.
The claimant had sought to continue working from home for part of the week while recovering. However, the school took the position that her role was not eligible for flexible working arrangements during term time.
At a 7 October 2025 meeting, she was told she would have to work on campus five days a week.
The claimant asked to retain one day of working from home, explaining that the arrangement would support her recovery. However, the school maintained that her role was not eligible for WFH under its flexible working arrangements policy.
The tribunal found that the school had already formed its position by the time of the meeting and that there was no genuine willingness to negotiate or discuss the claimant’s concerns.
It also found that alternatives, including temporary part-time cover, a trial arrangement subject to review or other adjustments, were not properly explored.
Doctor recommended one day of WFH
The claimant subsequently underwent a fit-for-work assessment on 21 October 2025.
The assessment found that she was unable to lift loads above 5kg and had reduced grip strength. She also continued to experience fatigue and required short periods of rest after two to three hours of work.
The doctor assessed her as fit to return to work but recommended that she initially work a four-day week, with one day from home, while avoiding loads above 4kg. The arrangement was intended to be reviewed as her recovery progressed.
However, the school maintained that working from home was not mandatory and that the decision remained at its discretion.
The claimant continued to argue that one day of WFH would support her recovery and allow her to attend rehabilitation while continuing to perform her duties.
Dispute extended to rehabilitation appointments
The dispute was not limited to working from home.
The claimant was also attending twice-weekly rehabilitation sessions, which her doctors considered important to her recovery.
The school allowed her to leave work early for the sessions, but imposed a restriction that she could only leave from 4pm onwards to attend 5pm appointments.
The tribunal noted that these appointments were available only on certain days and were limited to five patients per session. The claimant said the restriction made it difficult to secure suitable appointments.
The school also said her temporary restriction on lifting heavy loads would expire on 11 January 2026 unless she provided further medical documentation.
The claimant questioned why the restriction needed to expire before her scheduled medical review and asked the school to clarify what information was required in the medical certificate.
Employee’s health deteriorated before resignation
The tribunal found that the continued dispute and workplace requirements took a significant toll on the claimant’s health.
She experienced difficulty sleeping, daily crying, severe headaches, anxiety and weight loss.
In November 2025, her oncologist issued another medical memorandum stating that she remained in remission but was experiencing severe peripheral neuropathy in her hands following chemotherapy. The condition affected her ability to write and perform fine movements, and she continued to require rehabilitation.
She subsequently took several periods of medical leave.
During a telephone consultation with her oncologist on 8 December, she was told that her reported symptoms were “very concerning” and that she needed to take time away from work.
The claimant said this was when she realised that she needed to resign to protect her health.
She submitted her resignation on 19 December 2025, ending a 17-year career with the school. Her last day of employment was 18 January 2026.
Tribunal finds resignation amounted to dismissal
Although the claimant had resigned, the tribunal considered whether she had been constructively dismissed under Singapore’s Employment Act.
Under section 2(1) of the Act, a resignation may be treated as a dismissal where an employee can show, on a balance of probabilities, that they did not resign voluntarily but were forced to do so because of the employer’s conduct or omission.
Joel Tan, Tribunal Magistrate found that the claimant had been placed in a situation where she had to choose between remaining in employment while risking further deterioration of her health, or resigning to protect it.
He found that she had reasonably chosen her health over her employment.
As a result, her resignation was not voluntary and amounted to a dismissal under the Employment Act.
The tribunal also found that the school had fundamentally breached its implied duty to take reasonable care of the claimant’s health and safety.
It found that the school had also breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in the employment relationship.
S$20,000 awarded for loss of income and harm
The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse and awarded the claimant S$20,000.
The award comprised:
- S$15,240 for loss of income, equivalent to three months of her monthly salary of S$5,080
- S$4,760 for harm caused by the employer’s conduct
The tribunal found that the claimant’s decision to remain unemployed and focus on her recovery was reasonable given her medical condition.
It also found that, had it not been for the employer’s conduct, she would likely have remained employed. Her loss of income was therefore a direct and foreseeable consequence of the conduct that forced her resignation.
The tribunal said it would otherwise have awarded S$15,240 for harm, but the monetary limit of its jurisdiction meant that the harm component had to be capped at the remaining S$4,760.
The claimant was also awarded S$400 in costs and S$70 in disbursements.
Tribunal: Employee support must be reflected in workplace decisions
By the time of the hearing, the claimant’s condition had improved significantly through rehabilitation. She no longer experienced the same level of fatigue and said she believed she could work from the office every day.
The tribunal noted that the improvement was not guaranteed, and that this uncertainty was a reason for the employer to allow time for recovery, review the situation periodically and consult the claimant about her needs.
In closing, the tribunal highlighted the gap between the school’s stated belief that it wanted to “look after” and support its staff and how it had handled the claimant’s situation.
share on
