A director who was dismissed by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham after taking sickness absence for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) brought about by her experiences of helping people affected by the Grenfell Tower fire has been awarded £4.58m in compensation.

Legal firm Doyle Clayton, acting on behalf of Rachael Wright-Turner who had sued her former employer for disability discrimination, said the award is believed to be one of the highest, and potentially the highest, figure for a judgment of this kind.

The London Central employment tribunal had found in the claimant’s favour in 2021 and also found that officers at the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham had given untrue evidence under oath. The judgment to determine the damages award was handed down on 13 March.

Wright-Turner had been diagnosed with PTSD in October 2017 shortly before leaving neighbouring authority, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. She was working as humanitarian assistance lead officer and had been supporting individuals affected by the Grenfell Tower fire in June that year; 72 people had died in the tragedy .

The previous year, in 2016, she had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and managed the condition with daily medication.

The employment tribunal heard that when Wright-Turner started her new role as director of public services reform with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham on 13 November 2017, she met with its chief executive Kim Smith (née Dero) and informed her that she had secondary PTSD as a result of her Grenfell work and was having counselling.

During this conversation, Smith discussed the details of a harrowing YouTube video of the fire and Wright-Turner became distressed. The claimant ‘started weeping and cried profusely and was very upset and shaken’.

IT IS A CLEAR REFLECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL’S VIEWS ON THE CONDUCT OF THE EMPLOYER IN THIS CASE AND THE SENIOR OFFICERS’ DELIBERATE MISLEADING OF THE CLAIMANT

The tribunal panel heard that concerns about Wright-Turner’s performance were raised in a meeting on 2 May 2018 while she was still on probation. Smith had also questioned whether the claimant had disclosed her ADHD during the pre- and post-employment screening process.

After work that same day, Wright-Turner joined colleagues in a local pub where she recounted details of her meeting with the council’s chief executive. She said the pair had discussed her ADHD and that she felt Smith had not treated her fairly.

Wright-Turner confided that she was exhausted and stressed. The claimant also said that she needed a break; she was struggling with her mental health and referred to marital difficulties.

The tribunal found she was expressing her anxiety about the potential repercussions of taking sick leave before she had completed her probationary period.

During the pub visit, the claimant began to have a panic attack with flashbacks. Accompanied by a colleague, she went to the toilet, began to hyperventilate and refused to leave the cubicle.

After she was taken to accident and emergency at Charing Cross Hospital, medical staff assessed that she was depressed, suicidal and traumatised but not intoxicated.

Interim HR director Mark Grimley, who was one of the staff members at the pub, subsequently reported that Wright-Turner had ‘had a lot to drink’. However, the tribunal found that the evidence he gave about the claimant’s alcohol consumption that night was ‘mistaken and misleading’.

Initially, her GP signed her off work for a month, commencing on 3 May, but her sickness absence was subsequently extended.

On 19 May, Wright-Turner received a letter (dated 10 May but postmarked 17 May) notifying her that the council had extended her probationary period by three months to 9 August.

The tribunal, however, concluded that the letter was completed and printed after 10 May and therefore backdated. It also found that on 2 May (the day before Wright-Turner went on sick leave), Smith had neither decided nor intended to extend the claimant’s probation.

‘Not only did [Smith] sign this letter knowing that it was backdated, it is likely that she either instructed that this letter was backdated or she sanctioned this decision,’ it found.

The tribunal panel ruled that the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham’s decision to extend the director’s probation was ‘unfavourable treatment which was related to the claimant’s disability-related sickness absence.’

Then, on 1 August 2018, Wright-Turner received a second letter which informed her that she had been dismissed from her job at the council. The contents of this letter explained the reason for her dismissal; the council didn’t think that Turner-Wright would be able to satisfactorily complete her probation.

The tribunal found that the reason why the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham had dismissed the claimant without any formal process was because she was on sick leave.

In the appeal that the claimant’s solicitors submitted against her dismissal and grievance on 15 August, Turner-Wright asserted that Smith had not raised any significant concerns about her performance or capability.

Turner-Wright also alleged that the dismissal letter – like the one that had extended her probation – had also been backdated. The tribunal ruled in her favour and found that both letters had been backdated.

Judge Khan noted the absence of any reference to Wright-Turner’s sickness absence or the conditions on which she relied on as disabilities in the termination letter. The judge added that it ‘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’.

The judge also noted that when Smith made the decision to dismiss the claimant on 31 July, Wright-Turner ‘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. The dismissal letter made no reference to a right to appeal and when the claimant submitted one, it was not dealt with.’

The tribunal found that in giving evidence both Smith and Grimley had ‘sought to rely on facts’ which they knew not to be true.

In a statement , a London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham spokesperson said the council was very sorry for the ordeal suffered by Wright-Turner.

‘However, we have always considered [her] claim for compensation to be vastly excessive, disputed and highly unprecedented.

‘While we are grateful to the tribunal panel for dismissing many of the exceptional claims that her lawyers have made, we still believe this award is excessive and will be looking to appeal.’

Commenting on the case, Su Apps, partner at Ashfords LLP, told IOSH magazine: ‘Whilst we do not yet know the breakdown of this unusually high award, it is interesting to note that it is partially made up of exemplary damages.

‘This form of compensation is specifically designed to penalise behaviour by government servants that is deemed “oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional,” rather than solely compensating the victim for their losses. Such compensation is rarely given, with this possibly being the first instance in at least ten years.

‘However, it is a clear reflection of the tribunal’s views on the conduct of the employer in this case and the senior officers’ deliberate misleading of the claimant. It is a salient reminder to all employers to ensure that their managers are trained in managing employees suffering from mental health disorders with compassion and empathy. It also serves as a warning to employers to be hesitant in dismissing employees with short service without going through a clear, fair and reasonable process.’

Kizzy Augustin, Health and safety partner at Mishcon de Reya LLP, added that the case illustrated the weight now being attributed by the courts to the proactive management by employers of mental health and wellbeing in the workplace, not only from an HR perspective, but in light of ongoing health and safety obligations.

Source: IOSH Magazine

Comment: "This is an absolute disgrace! Workers die from avoidable accidents and their families receive a pittance. This Councillor gets £4.8 million!."