REWARD
No specific response was provided to the claimant about her email. Instead, an internal email was sent by one of the managers which stated that the claimant “…has become very emotional and tearful, especially over the last week or so. I am very frustrated with this as she is certainly not overworked, and we have been very supportive in helping her manage her workload…” The claimant went on sick leave two working days later and brought forward the start of her maternity leave. During her maternity leave the claimant asked for keeping in touch days. However there was again a lack of a response direct to the claimant about them; the manager just sent an email to the respondent’s payroll team saying, “This is approved”. The claimant’s return from maternity leave was also not handled well and certain communication was again lacking. Around a month after her return from maternity leave, the claimant was certified as unfit for work with postnatal depression and she ultimately resigned around six weeks later. The claimant brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination. Following receipt of the claimant’s email, the ET held that the respondent should have considered altering the claimant’s working conditions or hours of work, redeploying the claimant to a suitable alternative role or failing that, suspending her on full pay. It found that there was an “obvious and pressing need” for the respondent to complete a risk assessment. However, the respondent failed to do any of this. The ET held that the internal email sent by the respondent’s manager was stereotyping the claimant as an “emotional, hormonal pregnant woman” and that their description of the claimant was dismissive and belittling. The inference was that the claimant was not fully in control of her emotions because of the pregnancy. The ET found that the lack of an adequate response to the claimant’s email and the failure to ensure that a risk assessment was undertaken was because of the claimant’s pregnancy. The claimant’s discrimination claim on this issue therefore succeeded. The respondent’s failure to undertake a risk assessment during the claimant’s
pregnancy, ahead of or on her return to work following her maternity leave, as well as the manager’s lack of effective response to the claimant’s email, also meant that trust and confidence was ultimately destroyed. The ET found, therefore, that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed. She was awarded more than £350,000 in compensation. “There was a failure to assess the claimant’s behaviour in the context of a toxic, dysfunctional and lawless office where the managers were complicit in the development and Bringing emotional support dog to work was not a reasonable adjustment The ET, in the case of Cullingford v Secretary of State for Justice, had to consider whether an employee requesting to keep a dog in her car while working constituted a fair, reasonable adjustment request. The claimant worked for the respondent as a County Court Bailiff and her role involved going out to people’s homes to enforce court orders. The claimant was diagnosed with cancer on three separate occasions and experienced anxiety. After the claimant’s dog was spotted in her car by three other bailiffs, she was told that she could not bring her dog into work. The manager claimed that it was unsafe and that the dog could potentially jump out of the car. The claimant maintained that the dog was always strapped in, but her manager continued to say that she could not have the dog in the car. The maintenance of that culture, which was made worse by their failure to enforce standards”
claimant asserted that her dog was acting as an emotional support animal to help her to manage her anxiety. She found her job quite lonely and talking issues through with her dog helped her to process things that were going on and helped her to relax. The claimant emailed her manager outlining the reasons for her request to bring her dog with her to work, but the request was ultimately rejected. The claimant brought claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability-related harassment. She later resigned from her employment. The ET found that there was a relevant link between the claimant’s anxiety and her cancer, so went on to consider whether there was any exacerbation or difficulty with anxiety caused by the respondent’s decision to not allow the claimant to bring her dog to work. The ET found that there was insufficient evidence of a substantial disadvantage. The claimant, for example, did not bring her dog with her on eviction days, which was the most stressful part of her role. The duty to make reasonable adjustments was not triggered and the claim failed. In relation to the harassment claim, the claimant alleged that her manager had shared information about her request with colleagues. The claimant also referred to comments made by her colleague about senior members of staff being permitted to bring dogs into work and stated that she perceived that this was mocking her. However, the ET could not see any connection between
what was said and the claimant’s disability. The harassment claim, therefore, also failed.
Although the claims failed, the ET was critical about the lack of notes taken by the respondent during _ any discussions with the claimant. It was concerned by this because it was difficult to see the claimant’s own explanation of her needs to the respondent. The ET said that this was exacerbated by the absence of a “sit-down meeting” with the claimant to discuss what could or could not be accommodated in the job to help her. This meant that the claimant was left on the outside of the decision-making process, and she perhaps became more entrenched in her position. n
31
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward |
Issue 107 | February 2025
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker