Employee with ADHD and PTSD awarded £4.5million after dismissal for failing her probationary period

Mrs Wright-Turner has been awarded what is believe to be the largest compensation award paid by an Employment Tribunal in a Public Sector case following the judgement in the case of Mrs Wright-Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Ms K Dero.

Mrs W-T was employed as the Director of Public Services and started in her new role in November 2017.  She was diagnosed with PTSD (linked to her recent involvement with the Grenfell Tower fire) and ADHD, which she declared on her pre-employment questionnaire, but her line manager (Ms K Dero) was not aware of until some months into her employment.

During her time in post she worked very long hours and colleagues saw that she was often stressed and at times appeared distressed at work and her physical health was deteriorating.  Alongside this she was having marital problems and these factors combined were affecting her mental health.

During her first week in post her line manger (Ms K Dero) told her that she was considered an outsider and not trusted and also discussed a distressing video of the fire and her own experience of the Grenfell fire which resulted in Mrs W-T becoming visibly upset and having to work from home for two weeks due to the conversation having triggered her PTSD.

In April in a one to one meeting Mrs W-T was told that she needed to plan more efficiently and show more leadership, but no serious performance concerns were raised.

Mrs Dero became aware that Mrs W-T had ADHD following an issue that arose relating to an email that Mrs W-T sent to a senior leader that was felt to be sarcastic and over familiar in tone.  When her line manager became aware of her ADHD it appeared to have a profound impact of her perception of Mrs W-T and on 2^nd May her line manager called her to an ad hoc meeting where she told Mrs W-T that her “brain doesn’t work like other peoples” and questioned why Mrs W-T had not mentioned her ADHD to her previously.  Mrs W-T felt that shew as being accused of deliberately concealing her condition and that she was being viewed as someone with “special needs”, which she found offensive and humiliating.

That evening, as a result of the meeting, she suffered a panic attack and had to go to A&E where she was assess as being depressed, suicidal and traumatised and was signed off work for a month with PTSD and acute anxiety and her employer was informed her GP had advised no contact from work during this time to allow her to have a complete break.

Mrs W-T’s probation was due to end on 11^th May and on 17^th May, without any prior indication of any performance concerns Mrs W-T received a letter extending her probation period by three months, the letter was dated 10^th May (the day before her probation period was due to end).  However the tribunal later found that this letter had been backdated to mislead Mrs W-T that a decision had been made about her employment prior to the 11^th May, when her probation should have ended.  The letter references performance concerns but it did not set out what these were.

Mrs W-T continued to be signed off work but raised a holding grievance on 1^st August alleging disability discrimination and harassment.  The Council ended her employment at the end of the three month extension and sent a letter dated 31^st July confirming it’s decision to do, however it was found that the letter had been written on 2^nd August and backdated to avoid the impression that the dismissal was in response to the grievance.  There was little detail about the alleged failure during the probation period it mentioning Mrs W-T’s absence to avoid the impression that it had been a consideration in their decision.

Mrs W-T raised a second grievance alleging discrimination, harassment, a failure to respond to her grievances and the deliberate backdating of the termination letter and failure to allow her to appeal against her dismissal.  She then brought various claims to tribunal against both her employer and her line manager personally.

Decision

The tribunal found that:

1. Ms K Dero had harassed Mrs W-T in respect of her comments about her disability;
2. The extension of her probation amounted to direct discrimination arising from a disability, if Mrs W-T had not gone off sick she would have passed her probationary period;
3. The dismissal was direct discrimination.  A hypothetical comparator who didn’t have Mrs W-T’s disabilities would not have been dismissed in these circumstances and that discrimination arose from a disability: she was on sick leave and hadn’t been warned or given the opportunity to make representations or to appeal against the decision and no alternative, such as extending her probation period was considered.

Award

Mrs W-T was awarded £4,580,587.39. The size of the award reflects the fact that Mrs W-T was a senior and successful public servant who had a strong career path and the effects of the dismissal were severe with her health being damaged so significantly that it is thought she may never work again.  Her managed has also ended and repossession proceedings had started on her home due to her being out of work.

It was made up of the following:

1. Losses up to the date of the hearing of £450k
2. Future loss of earning of nearly £1.5 million (which included substantial pension losses, mortgage interest rates and private therapy costs).  It was found that Mrs W-T’s health was so badly affected that she would be unlikely to be able to work again and so this included future salary losses until retirement.
3. Injury to feelings at the top end of the Vento Scale of £60k
4. Psychiatric injury £60k
5. Aggravated damages of £20k due to the Council witnesses deliberate attempts to mislead the tribunal
6. Exemplary damages of £15k due to the Council being unconstitutional
7. £20k due to a failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice
8. Plus interest and grossing up

Full details of the case can be found at EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (publishing.service.gov.uk)