Claimant awarded ‘unprecedented’ payment after being sacked while on sick leave
A council worker who was dismissed after taking sick leave for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following the Grenfell Tower fire has been awarded a record £4.6m by an employment tribunal for disability discrimination and harassment. The figure is thought to be the highest ever award against a public body.
Rachael Wright-Turner had been working as director of public service reform at the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, but she was signed off sick after having an intense panic attack with colleagues which resulted in her being taken to A&E. Up until starting the role at Hammersmith and Fulham, Wright-Turner had been a humanitarian assistance lead officer at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council supporting those affected by the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, in which seventy-two people died.
The tribunal found that the council’s decision to extend Wright-Turner’s probationary period after she went on sick leave amounted to unfavourable treatment, and it concluded that the chief executive Kim Smith and interim HR director Mark Grimley had conspired to edit her dismissal letter so it appeared to have been signed off before Wright-Turner launched a grievance process. Employment Judge Khan said their evidence “sought to rely on facts which they knew to be untrue.”
Background
Wright-Turner was employed by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham for less than nine months between November 2017 and August 2018 as director of public service reform. Prior to this, she was employed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as the humanitarian assistance lead officer supporting its response to the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017. Wright-Turner was diagnosed with PTSD in October 2017 and had previously been diagnosed with ADHD in 2016.
On her first day in her new role, Wright-Turner met with chief executive Smith, telling her she had secondary PTSD as a result of her Grenfell work and that she was undergoing counselling. She outlined her experience of being evacuated from her home at night by the fire service and “started weeping and cried profusely” during the conversation.
On 2 May 2018, concerns about Wright-Turner’s performance were raised in a meeting and she was also accused by Smith of not disclosing her ADHD in the recruitment process. The tribunal noted that “it is likely that the claimant found this both humiliating and offensive.”
On the concerns around performance, the tribunal “did not find it likely” at this point that Smith raised any concerns about the claimant’s performance or indicated “that she had any intention of extending the claimant’s probation on this date.” During a pub visit after work that day with colleagues, she recounted details of her meeting with Smith, saying they had discussed her ADHD, and that Smith was treating her unfairly and like she had “special needs.”
She told her colleagues she was exhausted and stressed, but that she was concerned about the consequences of taking sick leave before she finished her probation period. While at the pub, Wright-Turner had a panic attack with flashbacks. She went to the toilet, accompanied by a colleague, and began hyperventilating and refused to leave.
Wright-Turner was taken to hospital where she was assessed as being depressed, suicidal and traumatised – but not intoxicated. Later that evening Grimley texted Smith saying Wright-Turner had “booked herself into A&E, but do not worry. She is ok. It is not an emergency; she has had a lot to drink.” The tribunal noted that “this was inaccurate in several respects.”
Wright-Turner was signed off work for a month, which was then extended. She received a letter on 10 May informing her that her probationary period had been extended by three months. The tribunal found that this letter had purposefully been doctored. It found the letter was backdated to make it look like the decision to extend her probation period had been made before Wright-Turner was signed off work for her mental health.
In August, Wright-Turner received another letter, informing her she had been dismissed from the council. The letter outlined that the council did not think she would be able to satisfactorily complete her probationary period. She submitted an appeal against her dismissal and grievance via her solicitors on 15 August, asserting Smith had not raised any significant concerns about her performance or capability.
She alleged that the dismissal letter had been backdated upon receipt of the letter of 1 August 2018, and that this was part of the same pattern in which the letter extending her probation had also been backdated. The tribunal found that both letters were backdated.
Judge’s comments
The judge said of the dismissal letter that the absence of any reference to Wright-Turner’s sickness absence was a “deliberate omission to avoid any inference that this decision was in any way connected with the claimant’s mental health or related sickness absence.” He ruled that, on the issue of doctoring letters, Smith and Grimley “acted together to deceive the claimant,” and that they failed to “follow the provisions or spirit of the probationary procedure in relation to the claimant.”
The tribunal ruled that the decision to extend Wright-Turner’s probation was “unfavourable treatment which was related to the claimant’s disability-related sickness absence.” It added: “The claimant was neither warned that she was at risk of dismissal, nor given any opportunity to make representations before this decision was taken. Nor was she given any opportunity to appeal.”
In total, the tribunal awarded Wright-Turner £4.6m, and concluded that she had been harassed and discriminated against. A spokesperson for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council said they were sorry for Wright-Turner’s ordeal but said that the compensation awarded was “vastly excessive, disputed and highly unprecedented.” “While we are grateful to the tribunal panel for dismissing many of the exceptional claims that her lawyers have made, we still believe this award is excessive and will be looking to appeal,” they said.
Lawyer’s comments
Jane Mann, an employment partner at Fox Williams, described the case as a “salient reminder” to employers of the potential costs of neglecting their duty to accommodate employees with disabilities. “It underscores the importance of taking employee ill-health seriously and managing it fairly and appropriately, while following internal policies,” she told People Management.
“Managers should receive comprehensive training to ensure they avoid the pitfalls that the council fell into in this case. That is the best way to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws and foster an inclusive work environment,” she added.
Mann recommended employers conduct regular assessments of employee wellbeing, as showing genuine support for employees with ill-health can both foster a positive culture and mitigate the risk of successful disability discrimination claims.
Moreover, she said employers should prioritise open environments where employees feel comfortable discussing disabilities and seeking adjustments to perform their jobs effectively, and that employers should ensure that HR and key managers are aware of warning signs regarding mental ill-health and the ways in which they can alleviate them.
Council Worker Awarded £4.6m in Landmark Disability Discrimination Case
Key Messages for Employers:
- Take Mental Health Seriously: The case highlights the critical importance of employers recognising and accommodating employees’ mental health conditions. Employers must understand the impact of traumatic events on their staff and provide appropriate support.
- Fair Treatment is Essential: The tribunal’s ruling underscores the necessity for fair and unbiased treatment of employees, especially those dealing with disabilities or mental health issues. Any actions perceived as discriminatory or retaliatory can lead to significant legal and financial repercussions.
- Proper Training for Managers: Comprehensive training for managers is crucial to ensure they manage employee health issues sensitively and in compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Managers must be equipped to navigate difficult situations and avoid pitfalls that could lead to legal disputes.
- Transparency and Open Communication: Encouraging open dialogue about disabilities in the workplace fosters a culture of inclusion and support. Employers should create environments where employees feel comfortable discussing their health conditions and seeking necessary accommodations without fear of stigma or discrimination.
- Regular Wellbeing Assessments: Implementing regular assessments of employee wellbeing allows employers to proactively identify and address potential issues. Prioritising employee welfare not only promotes a positive work environment but also reduces the risk of disability discrimination claims.
- Awareness of Warning Signs: HR departments and managers should be trained to recognise signs of mental health struggles and understand how to support affected employees. Early intervention and appropriate assistance can prevent situations from escalating and mitigate legal risks.
- Compliance with Policies and Procedures: Employers must adhere to internal policies and procedures, ensuring fairness and consistency in their approach to employee management. Any deviations from established protocols, especially in sensitive matters like disability accommodation, can lead to legal challenges.
By internalising these key messages and implementing appropriate policies and training, employers can create an inclusive and supportive workplace where all employees are treated with dignity and respect, thereby minimising the risk of costly legal disputes, and fostering a culture of wellbeing and productivity.