Neurodivergent council worker left with PTSD after Grenfell Tower fire wins record £4.6m at employment tribunal
Melanie Francis Chartered FCIPD
Founder - Neuroinclusive HR // Director of Neurodiversity at Work at Do-IT Solutions Ltd // Senior HR // Top 80 UK ND Evangelist 2023 // Neurodiversity at Work Specialist, Trainer and Speaker // Neurodiversity Champion
That is a headline and a half! This case is one that has so many lessons and it's important that we understand the case, and the costly implications for London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
Rachael Wright-Turner had been working as director of public services reform at the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
Wright-Turner was diagnosed with PTSD in October 2017 and had previously been diagnosed with ADHD in 2016.
On her first day in her new role, Wright-Turner met with chief executive Kim Smith, telling her she had secondary PTSD as a result of her Grenfell work and that she was undergoing counselling., but she was signed off sick after having an intense panic attack with colleagues that resulted in her being taken to A&E.
On 2 May 2018, concerns about Wright-Turner’s performance were raised in a meeting and she was also accused by Smith of not disclosing her ADHD in the recruitment process.
During a pub visit after work that day with colleagues, she recounted details of her meeting with Smith, saying they had discussed her ADHD and that Smith was treating her unfairly and like she had “special needs”.
She told her colleagues she was exhausted and stressed, but that she was concerned about the consequences of taking sick leave before she finished her probation period.?
While at the pub, Wright-Turner had a panic attack with flashbacks. She went to the toilet, accompanied by a colleague, and began hyperventilating and refused to leave.?
Wright-Turner was taken to hospital where she was assessed as being depressed, suicidal and traumatised – but not intoxicated.
Later that evening Grimley texted Smith saying Wright-Turner had “booked herself into A&E, but don’t worry. She’s OK. It’s not an emergency, she's had a lot to drink.”
The tribunal noted that “this was inaccurate in several respects”.
Wright-Turner was signed off work for a month, which was then extended. She received a letter on 10 May informing her that her probationary period had been extended by three months.
The tribunal found that this letter had purposefully been doctored. It found the letter was backdated to make it look like the decision to extend her probation period had been made before Wright-Turner was signed off work for her mental health.
In August, Wright-Turner received another letter, informing her she had been dismissed from the council.
The letter outlined that the council did not think she would be able to satisfactorily complete her probationary period.
She submitted an appeal against her dismissal and grievance via her solicitors on 15 August, asserting Smith had not raised any significant concerns about her performance or capability.
领英推荐
She alleged that the dismissal letter had been backdated upon receipt of the letter of 1 August 2018, and that this was part of the same pattern in which the letter extending her probation had also been backdated. The tribunal found that both letters were backdated.
The employment tribunal concluded that the chief executive, Kim Smith, and interim HR director Mark Grimley had conspired to edit her dismissal letter so it appeared to have been signed off before Wright-Turner launched a grievance process.
The judge said of the dismissal letter that the absence of any reference to Wright-Turner’s sickness absence was a “deliberate omission to avoid any inference that this decision was in any way connected with the claimant’s mental health or related sickness absence”.?
They ruled that, on the issue of doctoring letters, Smith and Grimley “acted together to deceive the claimant”, and that they failed to “follow the provisions or spirit of the probationary procedure in relation to the claimant”.?
The tribunal ruled that the decision to extend Wright-Turner’s probation was “unfavourable treatment that was related to the claimant’s disability-related sickness absence”.
It added: “The claimant was neither warned that she was at risk of dismissal, nor given any opportunity to make representations before this decision was taken. Nor was she given any opportunity to appeal.”
In total, the tribunal awarded Wright-Turner £4.6m, and concluded that she had been harassed and discriminated against.?
This case is an important one. Employer's must ensure that any condition that may be classified as a disability is taken into account in any formal process and that adequate consideration is rightly given.
In this case, the failure to do that, and the actions by two individuals who should have been professional in their actions have had serious implications - not only for the Council, but for Rachael Wright-Turner personally too.
Following the conclusion of the hearing at London Central Employment Tribunal, she said the "horrible" six-year legal battle had caused her "world to collapse" and "devastated" her mental health.
As HR professionals, we have a duty to ensure that staff are supported and that the processes are followed within the bounds of the law.
Too often, I have seen the reliance on 'short service dismissal' as though it is a form of free pass to treat people with complete disregard. As this case shows, this can have serious repercussions.
Not having 2 years service shouldn't mean that people are treated less favourably. Let's not do that.
You can read the full case on the Employment Tribunal Website, here.
I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
Powering innovation through exceptional talent - Bluestream People, your recruitment partner for Aerospace, Energy, Engineering, Manufacturing, Space and Satellite Communications industries.
6 个月Thank you for Sharing Mel
Empowering Organisations Through Learning & Digital Transformation. Late diagnosed ADHDer.
6 个月I have read the case in its entirety (it’s a long one and not for the faint hearted) It’s a true tale of woe. High workloads, lack of support, big egos and finally situating organisational issues with the individual and passing it off as her own inadequacies thus treating her as if she was incapable exacerbating her stress and other symptoms. What they needed to do was listen, show compassion understanding and communicate and I suspect all of this would have been avoided, however they chose a route that led them here. What happened not only ruined the claimants career but the careers of all involved in the process, it’s stupidity of epic proportions. I feel for Rachel (the claimant) in this case, they really treated her like a social pariah, fought her all the way even when they must have realised that this case left them exposed. She was is a woman who needed help and support and instead was flung to the side when she needed it most, in the process she lost everything. What is staggering to me that, even in issuing an apology, the council we unable to hold their hands up, their response included a pointed statement informing us they will appeal the award as it is excessive, this feels disingenuous and not an apology at all.