E-mail this to a friend
Print this
Government employer sued for mental health disability discrimination
23 November 2007
Whilst Government boasts initiatives promoting mental health best practice in the workplace
A woman diagnosed with clinical depression is suing her former employer, the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council), for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination for failing to take into account her mental health problems in their dealings with her, despite Council records showing they were fully aware of her clinical depression.
Ironically, this case comes at a time when the Government’s PR machine is still actively promoting the Department of Health’s anti-stigma initiative ‘Shift’, offering ‘tips’ for manager on how to deal more effectively and fairly with employees’ mental health problems. (www.shift.org.uk: ‘promoting mental health, ending discrimination at work’).
The detail of the case
Sandra Samuel had worked for the Council since 1990. In 1994 she was diagnosed with clinical depression following the birth of her twins. She also suffers from chronic back problems which may be linked to her depression. Both conditions are recognised as disabilities under the Disability Discrimination Act. From 1999 Samuel worked a 24-hour week in order to manage her childcare and healthcare issues.
In 2004, Samuel was dismissed from the Council following a disciplinary incident. She lodged a claim in the Tribunal for disability and race discrimination whilst appealing the Council's decision to terminate her employment: the Council formally recognised that she was ‘suffering from severe depression’ and admitted that they had not taken this into account when investigating the incident. Samuel was quickly reinstated and her Tribunal claim was withdrawn. However, the events which followed strongly implied that the Council did not genuinely want Samuel to return - they made it very difficult for Samuel to be included in the workplace following the reinstatement.
Since this time onwards, Samuel has been subjected to a farcical catalogue of delay and incompetent communication on the part of the Council, as they not only failed to find a suitable alternative role for her, but seemed indifferent as to how their handling of the situation would affect someone already clinically depressed. Samuel made repeated attempts to find out what steps were being taken to find her a new job, but to no avail. In May 2005 she raised a formal grievance.
The following October, a full 10 months after she was reinstated, she was finally informed that they had found an alternative role for her, which was in fact far from suitable: in particular, the Council would not make an adjustment to allow her to work 24 hours per week which she had been her contracted hours since 1999. Samuel's reduced working hours had initially been implemented for health reasons. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the Council offered no adequate training, nor supervision, to help her prepare for her new role. Samuel tried her hardest to make the role work, but soon realised that she had no alternative but to inform the Council it was not working out.
In June 2006 Samuel raised a further grievance, claiming that the Council was not taking her clinical depression into account in trying to find her a suitable alternative role, despite the fact they had formally acknowledged that she was clinically depressed in 2004, (clear from Council documents and records). She felt that the Council did not in fact want her to return to work and that they considered her a ‘nuisance’. In fact, until Match 2007, the Council denied knowledge of Samuel's diagnosis of clinical depression despite having known this for several years.
The Council failed to address Samuel's grievance or respond to her Disability Discrimination Questionnaire so she lodged a Tribunal claim claiming disability discrimination and victimisation. By 23 October 2006, Samuel lost all trust in the Council and treated herself as having been constructively dismissed after she received (via her solicitors) a letter from the Council demanding that she contact them following the death of her mother.
Samuel eventually found a temporary job with another local council who offered her a more permanent position. However, following a detrimental and misleading reference from the Council, the offer was withdrawn. As of November 2007, Samuel has been unemployed but is actively seeking new employment.
Hearing Details
The case due to be heard on 26 November at Stratford Employment Tribunal.
Comments on the case
Kiran Daurka, solicitor at award-winning Employment Law Team at Russell Jones & Walker, who is representing Ms Samuel, said:
“Sadly, this case is typical of an enduring attitude in the workplace: employers often do not have an understanding of mental health conditions that affect their employees and choose to bury their heads in the sand rather than dealing with the condition openly and constructively. It is only through an understanding of mental health conditions that an employer can consider what ‘reasonable adjustments’ can be made, to help employees to stay in the workplace and enjoy an active working life. What is particularly upsetting in this case is that we are dealing with a Government employer and their handling of our client flies in the face of Government initiatives such as Shift, which promotes awareness and understanding of mental health conditions in the workplace. The Council’s conduct in this case could not be further from Shift’s aim, ‘promoting mental health, ending discrimination at work’.
Commenting on the case today Paul Corry, Director of Public Affairs at Rethink, the leading national mental health membership charity, said:
“Making reasonable adjustments in the work place to enable people with mental health problems to work effectively is something the government has legislated for in the Disability Act and employers need to be taken to task when they do not act within the law. One in four people in the UK will experience some degree of metal ill health in their lifetime, prejudices and stigma around mental health need to be broken down.”
-Ends
For further information, please contact:
Kiran Daurka, Solicitor, Russell Jones & Walker 020 7339 6431
Anna Hudek, Kysen PR 020 7462 8409
Notes to editors:
Russell Jones & Walker employs over 360 staff (over 160 lawyers) and is renowned as the leading national firm of solicitors in protecting the rights and legal interest of individuals and those who represent them. RJ&W has network of regional offices and includes those in the following centre: London, Birmingham, Bristol, Wakefield, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, Cardiff and Edinburgh
EqualityXpress
Russell Jones & Walker has recently launched a new service, EqualityXpress, for people who are concerned they may have been the victim of discrimination in the workplace. EqualityXpress is an online service available via www.rjw.co.uk. It is free, confidential and easy-to-use.
Employment Law Team of the Year
Russell Jones & Walker were named runner-up by The Lawyer magazine for their “Employment Team of the Year” 2007 award. This has been won by Russell Jones & Walker three times previously in only an eight-year history of the award.
Discrimination Compensation Awards 2006
Russell Jones & Walker achieved the highest Employment Tribunal compensation awards for unlawful discrimination on behalf of their clients in 2006, according to figures released by the Equal Opportunities Review this August.
Top-ranked claimant lawyers 2007 in leading legal directory rankings
Russell Jones & Walker has this year again been ranked top for Claimants in both Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500. RJW has been top-ranked in both publications for many years. The 2008 Legal 500 noted:
"the ‘tenacious’ team has a thriving senior executive practice, as well as acting for unions such as the Police Federation, Prospect and the British Armed Services Federation". Chambers and Partners 2008 said: "Clients appreciate the “measured, multi-dimensional” advice given by the partners and respondent firms declare: “Use them if you want a rottweiler fighting your corner!”"