Karen Plumbley-JonesThis month, we look at Woodhead v WTTV Ltd and another where the High Court had to decide if the employer had breached its duty of care to an employee accused of sexual harassment. In Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd, the issue was whether a claimant with clinically-diagnosed autism and ADHD was disabled under the Equality Act. Lastly, Mahoro v The Northern Care Alliance considered whether the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments where they were not feasible for safety and operational reasons.
Woodhead v WTTV Ltd and another
Mr Woodhead was the managing director of WTTV. He had a history of depression and anxiety and was a recovering alcoholic. He was told that a freelance colleague had made sexual harassment complaints against him and was required to respond immediately. He was then suspended. In her complaints, the colleague disclosed personal information that Mr Woodhead had shared with her in private conversations. Mr Woodhead became very unwell and was admitted to hospital for several weeks. He was then treated as an outpatient for seven weeks. He brought claims against WTTV for negligence and misuse of private information. He alleged that WTTV’s handling of the disciplinary procedure was a breach of its duty of care, which caused him psychiatric injury.
The High Court upheld Mr Woodhead’s negligence claim. It was reasonably foreseeable that he was at risk of psychiatric injury due to his medical history, and WTTV had breached its duty of care to him in the way in which it had carried out the disciplinary process. However, it had not misused his private information; the colleague disclosed Mr Woodhead’s private information for a legitimate complaint under WTTV’s workplace respect policy. The disclosure was justified and did not constitute misuse.
Mahoro v The Northern Care Alliance
Mrs Mahoro was employed by the Northern Care Alliance (NCA) as a biomedical scientist band 6 team leader. She had a long-term spinal condition that affected her mobility and caused her pain. Following surgery, she returned to work on a phased basis and requested permanent reduced hours. An occupational health (OH) report supported her request and recommended a special chair. NCA refused the application for reduced hours, as it could not recruit another scientist to cover the remaining hours. NCA also rejected the request for a special chair, as it moved on castors and there were safety concerns about its use at laboratory benches. Mrs Mahoro experienced neck pain when using a manual microscope so a digital one was trialled. However, it was not accurate enough and would have created a risk to patients. Mrs Mahoro went off sick with stress and did not return to work. Five review meetings were held to consider OH reports and discuss arrangements to help Mrs Mahoro return to work. She was eventually dismissed for capability and brought several claims, including for unfair dismissal and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The ET rejected her claims and she appealed.
The EAT rejected her appeal. NCA’s refusal of the proposed working hours was not a failure to make reasonable adjustments because the arrangement would have put pressure on the rest of the team and it would have been difficult to recruit someone to cover the hours Mrs Mahoro did not want to work. The safety risk posed by the recommended chair meant that providing it was not a reasonable adjustment, and the provision of a digital microscope was not a reasonable adjustment either, given the danger to patients. (In other words, the employer had not failed to make reasonable adjustments because the adjustments were not workable and safe.) The dismissal was not unfair because Mrs Mahoro had been off sick for nearly two years when she had been dismissed, the adjustments that would have been necessary for her to return to her role were not reasonable, she had been consulted throughout the process and NCA had sought up-to-date medical reports.
