Recent Employment Tribunal cases

An employee who resigned after being replaced whilst on sick leave for treatment for breast cancer wins £1.2m

A senior manager was diagnosed with breast cancer and started her treatment just four days after starting her sick leave.  During the time she was on sick leave, a fellow colleague temporarily filled her position, but on receipt of an external job offer with a competitor, the company made her position permanent, with the intention of dividing the duties between the two employees.

The company then circulated an updated organisation chart that the sick employee did not appear on, of which they also excluded her from its circulation.  The employee three weeks later, saw a LinkedIn post congratulating her replacement on her new role – the role of the sick employee.

On the employee’s return to work, she didn’t return to her normal role, whereby she stated that she was demoted and several key responsibilities were taken away from her.  She then raised an 11 page grievance – the grievance was dismissed and the subsequent appeal was delayed which led the employee to resign.

The judge found that the employee had been traumatised and broken by the actions of her employer and as such found that she had been discriminated against.  The tribunal noted that the emotional impact on the employee was so severe that she was diagnosed with severe depression and anxiety.  They also acknowledged that she had been suicidal on at least two occasions. They stated that she had not yet recovered to the level that she was at before the acts of discrimination.

The employee was awarded £1,224,861.94, including £40,000 for injury to feeling, nearly £400,000 in lost earnings, £300,000 for future earnings and £130,000 in interest.

Peloton employee wins discrimination case

A Peloton employee with Autism and ADHD has won a discrimination case after his employer failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his disabilities.

The employee started working for the company in June 2022 and shortly after joining, he asked for the ability to wear sunglasses indoors and to avoid travelling in rush hour traffic because of his autism related sensory sensitivities.  Peloton agreed to this, but shortly afterwards, the working environment changed in that the noise, sensory stimulation and numbers of people increased.

When the employee raised this, both parties agreed that he could take regular 15 minute breaks to help manage the sensory overload, however in practice, these breaks were not properly delivered.  The employee was left to organise the breaks himself on a daily basis and so the tribunal found that this placed him at a serious disadvantage.

The tribunal accepted that loud music was a core part of Peloton’s brand, however they were particularly critical of the company’s lack of formal procedures, disability policy and records stating any agreed adjustments.

Ultimately the tribunal found that Peloton had discriminated against the employee by failing to make reasonable adjustments for his disability.  Compensation is to be determined at a later date.

An employee not told about the office move whilst on maternity leave wins £25k

An employee who worked for a recruitment company has succeeded in her claims against her employer for maternity discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal.

After the employee’s maternity leave ended, she returned to work to fine the office ‘cleared out’.  She enquired at the nearby Greggs and the staff there told her that a removal van had ‘taken everything’.  She later found out that the office had been permanently closed, but she hadn’t been told prior to her coming back to work.

Additionally, and during her maternity leave, both parties discussed different options for the employee’s return to work, in which it was informally agreed that she would return to her current post, but two days a week – she would then work back up to full time after a couple of months.  However, this arrangement was then withdrawn by the employer, of which the employee immediately objected to.  It was at this point that the employee resigned.

The tribunal found that reversing the informal agreement they had made about the employee’s return to work amounted to unfavourable treatment and maternity discrimination.

They also ruled that it was hard for them to understand why they didn’t tell the employee that the office had permanently closed, finding in the absence of any explanation, that it was because of her maternity and pregnancy.  

They found that the employee’s constructive dismissal was for a reason connected to her pregnancy and maternity and was therefore, automatically unfair.

If you would like any further information on this article or would like to discuss your employment law and HR matters, please don’t hesitate to contact hello@alphr.uk and we will be delighted to help you.