School said medical notes weren't the right format, tribunal disagreed
Tribunal Magistrate Joel Tan ruled on 12 August 2026 that a Singapore international school forced a cancer survivor to resign, ordering $20,000 in compensation.
The case involved an administrative assistant who had worked in the school's music department since 2008. She was diagnosed with stage 3 nasopharyngeal cancer in July 2024. After months of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, her oncologist certified her fit to return on 26 June 2025 and recommended light duties for ongoing side effects, a view an occupational therapist supported, citing fatigue and reduced hand function.
She returned to campus on 7 August 2025 and initially worked two days a week from home with her line manager's agreement. That arrangement broke down once the department head raised internal concerns that her absences were disrupting daily operations. At a meeting on 7 October 2025, the school's high school principal revoked the work-from-home arrangement immediately, said her medical documentation was insufficient because it was not a formal Light Duties Medical Certificate, and sent her for an independent fit-for-work assessment.
That assessment, on 21 October 2025, found she could not lift loads over five kilograms and recommended a four-day week with one day from home for two months. Human resources pressed the examining doctor by email to confirm the home-working advice was optional, and he eventually withdrew it. At a further meeting on 3 November 2025, the school restricted when she could leave early for her twice-weekly rehabilitation sessions, making the more accessible time slots conditional on half-day leave.
Days later, the human resources manager wrote to her that "you are deemed fit for work without restrictions from a medical perspective", despite three healthcare professionals having recommended accommodations. The tribunal found this conclusion was not one an ordinarily prudent employer could reasonably reach.
Her health deteriorated through November and December 2025. She lost weight, developed anxiety and insomnia, and her oncologist recorded permanent nerve damage from chemotherapy. She resigned on 19 December 2025, with her employment ending on 18 January 2026, and later filed a claim alleging she had been dismissed without just cause or excuse under the Employment Act.
The tribunal agreed. It found the school breached its implied duty to take reasonable care of her health and safety, and breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, by fixating on the form of medical documentation rather than its substance. The school had told her in writing that "your preferences do not have to be accommodated by us". Tribunal Magistrate Tan found this conduct left her with no practical alternative but to resign, amounting to a dismissal under the Employment Act made without just cause or excuse.
The tribunal awarded the maximum $20,000 within its jurisdiction, comprising three months' salary for loss of income and the balance for harm caused by the breach of duty, plus $400 in costs and $70 in disbursements. It rejected the school's argument that a clerical notation on one medical certificate undermined the accumulated evidence of three healthcare professionals.
The tribunal's own reasoning centred on the gap between the school's stated culture and its conduct: the principal told the hearing that "we want to look after our staff and support them," yet the tribunal found a considerable distance between those words and how the claimant's case was handled. Documentation recommending light duties from her oncologist, her occupational therapist and an independent examining doctor was treated as inadequate because none used the specific label or mandatory wording the school required, even as the underlying medical picture, permanent nerve damage, fatigue and reduced grip strength, went undisputed throughout.
