£2.5m Discrimination Awarded to Employee

A recent employment tribunal heard how an employee, who worked for a large US tech company, had written some defensive emails to his manager in relation to a recent promotion. The employee had received the promotion without an accompanying pay rise.

These emails were in response to evidence that he had been stating, the promotion was only to make him look more senior compared with a colleague. At this point he was experiencing symptoms from an undiagnosed cancer, causing him to be in an agitated state and suffering from side effects of steroid medication. The employee later made an appointment with occupational health. It was agreed he would take some time off work to rest and allow the level of steroids in his system to reduce.

He always received good performance reviews and no formal complaints were made against him. Without any prior warning, he was called to a meeting with the company’s HR Director and told that they (the company) would no longer be able to employ him, given no reason and told he had 20 minutes to leave. The employee was escorted from the building with his personal belongings. Immediately an email was sent to the Senior Leadership Team, by his line manager, informing them that he had been “let go”.

At the time of his dismissal had been employed with the company for just over 36 years, the majority of his working life and worked in a senior managerial role. A few weeks later and at the start of the employee’s start of chemotherapy following a cancer diagnosis, the company then attempted to enforce a post-dated dismissal process in an attempt to show that they had followed a fair procedure. This was found by the tribunal to be a sham.

The tribunal upheld several of the employee’s claims including discriminatory dismissal and harassment on the grounds of disability. In finding that the dismissal was unfair, the tribunal found that there had been no genuine attempt by the company to look at matters with a fresh outlook and consider the employee’s mitigating health circumstances. The dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal held: “No reasonable employer would have acted in the way the Respondent did in dismissing an employee who had spent 36 years working for the company”.

It was concluded by the tribunal that the employee’s line manager, who had made the decision to dismiss, had tried to suggest that the dismissal was rooted in a breakdown of trust and confidence. The tribunal concluded that the employee’s line manager had decided that he wanted the employee to go, and the only way this could be done quickly was to dress it up as a breakdown in trust and confidence. It was described by the tribunal as a “ruse” and they had failed to prove that this was in fact the reason for the dismissal.

Expert psychiatric evidence determined that the severe depression and anxiety the employee suffered was caused by the treatment he was subjected to by his employer. The evidence confirmed that the employee had not been able to work because of this or in the foreseeable future some 3½ years on, if at all.

At the remedy hearing with the Tribunal for compensation, it was revealed undisclosed documents, destroyed evidence and significant procedural defects, including a secret meeting for the decision to dismiss was confirmed. The tribunal awarded the employee £2,567,831.97, this is the second largest award for disability discrimination ever made by a tribunal in the UK. In making an award of this magnitude the tribunal recognised the career loss and made an aggravated damages award, which is very rarely made, to reflect the gravity of the employer’s conduct.

It is so rare for a tribunal make award of this size for discrimination. It reflects the employer’s actions, employee’s long service and severe impact of the employer’s actions on the employee, including the prospects of being able to work in a similar role again. If an employees performance or conduct is impacted by ill-health, an employer should conduct a reasonable investigation before deciding on the correct response, which includes obtaining medical evidence by employee consent. The more appropriate procedure where an employee’s conduct or performance is impacted by ill-health, would be dismissal on the grounds of an ill-health capability procedure.