Stress as a disability

In the recent case of Herry v Dudley MBC, the EAT provides useful guidance on whether stress caused by difficulties at work can amount to a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. It also provides guidance on factors for Tribunals to consider when assessing an individual’s ability to pay a costs award.

Background

Mr Herry was a design and technology teacher who, in 2012, brought wide-ranging Employment Tribunal claims against Dudley Council and the governing body of the school where he worked (referred to as his employer in this article – it’s worth noting he was still employed at the time). To give an idea of the size of the claim, it involved 90 separate allegations spanning a four year period, was heard over a 39 day hearing and resulted in a 317 page judgement. The Employment Tribunal dismissed all of his claims.

Unsurprisingly his employer made an application against Mr Herry for recovery of the costs it had incurred in defending the claims. It argued that he had behaved unreasonably, having pursued his claim in the face of advice from his union and two separate law centres that he had no reasonable prospects of success. His employer had also issued costs warnings against him.

The Tribunal granted the employer’s costs application, agreeing that Mr Herry had acted unreasonably in bringing proceedings. Despite assessing Mr Herry as “impecunious” (he was off sick, had exhausted his sick pay and was left with just £22.08 disposable income per month) it ordered him to pay all of his employer’s costs, which amounted to over £110,000.

By the point of the costs assessment Mr Herry had been dismissed, and he brought further proceedings alleging disability and race discrimination. He claimed that his disabilities were dyslexia, stress and depression. The Tribunal held that Mr Herry was not a disabled person at the material time, finding that his stress was “very largely a result of his unhappiness about what he perceives to have been unfair treatment of him, and to that extent is clearly a reaction to life events”.

Mr Herry appealed both the costs and disability decisions.

Appeal against costs award

The EAT upheld Mr Herry’s costs appeal in part as it considered that the Tribunal had not explained in sufficient detail why it considered that the costs award made was reasonable and proportionate in light of Mr Herry’s financial position. It held that there was “an obvious case” for capping the award or awarding only a proportion of the costs, and these options had not been considered. The matter was remitted to the Employment Tribunal to be considered again.

Appeal against disability discrimination decision

Mr Herry’s appeal in relation to his disability discrimination claim was, however dismissed. The EAT considered that the Tribunal had applied the correct legal test and stated that “unhappiness with a decision or a colleague, a tendency to nurse grievances, or a refusal to compromise, are not of themselves mental impairments: they may simply reflect a person’s character or personality”. There is a difference between a mental impairment (which can amount to a disability) and a reaction to life events (which cannot). The EAT also noted that there was a ‘dearth’ of evidence provided by Mr Herry as to the nature of his alleged work related stress, mostly limited to his sick notes.

Summary

This case relies on established principles, but is useful guidance for employers, many of whom will have experienced the situation where an employee goes off sick with stress following events at work (such as being put at risk of redundancy or being subjected to disciplinary proceedings). The judgement highlights that the focus in cases of stress-related disability discrimination claims is whether the individual’s condition has had a substantial long-term effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities, and the need for claimants to provide evidence in this regard.

CONTACT KEELY

If you would like more information or advice relating to this article or an Employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Keely Rushmore on 01727 798046 

© SA LAW 2020

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them alone. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Read the latest Employment Views & Insights
They seek to understand their clients and advise accordingly to achieve the outcomes that they require for their business needs.
Chambers and Partners
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: Updated Guidance on Flexible Furloughing

Under the flexible furlough scheme, employees can work for some of the week and be furloughed for the rest, in proportions decided between employee and…

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: Key changes between July – October 2020

Keely explores the key changes to the Covid-19 related furloughing that are set to impact employers and employees between July-October 2020.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) Direction and Extended Deadline

The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme will be extended to 30 June 2020, plus The Treasury has also issued a Direction to HMRC which provides legally binding…

Read More
Phone Box with Man in a Bowler Hat
As there is so much expertise on offer from SA Law they can provide a legal expert on all areas so that it can be handled under one roof.
Legal 500
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
COVID-19 Right to Work Checks Adjustment

Adjustments made to Right to Work Checks process for employers during COVID-19.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Updated Furlough Guidance provides clarification for employers

Over the weekend the government updated its guidance for employers on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) - Keely Rushmore reports.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
FAQs Furloughing Employees / Job Retention Scheme

Frequently asked questions on Furloughing Employees to help employers, line managers and employees – answered by SA Law’s employment team.

Read More
SA Law Red arrow neon light image
Views & Insights
Data protection and school photographs

ICO shares guidance following two schools being reprimanded for distributing photographs of pupils without parents’ consent.

Read More
They are knowledgeable, with a commercial mindset, but also down to earth and friendly so it is easy to be very honest with them.
Chambers and Partners