freeeploymentadvice.co.uk
Workplace Stress: THE LEGAL ESSENTIALS -
The summaries of cases on these pages illustrate developments in the Law of Workplace Stress 1999 to 2007.
Foreseeability: Working Conditions
Foreseeability: Reasonable Steps
Foreseeability: Evidence: Notice of Psychiatric Injury
Foreseeability: Contributory Negligence
Foreseeability: Excessive Workload
Foreseeability: Arrangements for Return to Work
Victim classification: Employee Witnessing Colleague’s Death
Victim classification: Post-
Constructive dismissal: Implied Term to take Reasonable Care for Health and Safety of Employees
Constructive Dismissal: Medical Evidence
Unfair Dismissal: Cause of Illness
Unfair Dismissal: Employment Tribunal: Compensation for Personal Injury
Unfair dismissal: Common Law Remedy
Disability Discrimination: Anxiety Disorder: Medical Evidence
Disability Discrimination: Disability: Medical Diagnosis
Disability Discrimination: Disability: Evidence of Mental Impairment
Damages: Causation: Exacerbation of Pre-
Damages: Quantum: Bullying at Work
Post-
Damages: Quantum: Anxiety Resulting from Minor Physical Injury
Post-
Service Personnel: Safe System of Work
Employment Tribunal Procedure: Postponement of Hearing: Medical Evidence
Foreseeability: Race Discrimination
Breach of Contract: Unfair Dismissal
Knowledge of Employer: Special Educational Needs School Teacher
Foreseeability: Stress Reduction Policy
Vicarious Liability: Breach of Statutory Duty: Harassment
Psychiatric Injury: Harassment: Foreseeability
Stress: Duty of Care Owed: Foreseeability
Stress: Duty of Care Owed: Workload
Stress: Foreseeability: Vicarious Liability
Psychiatric Injury: Foreseeability: Duty of Care
Post-
Post-
Stress:duty of Care Owed: Workload
Psychiatric Injury: Foreseeability: Duty of Care
Post-
Disability Discrimination Update
April 2008
Home About Me Qualifications Contact
Case Examples -
Sex Discrimination Disability Discrimination Workplace Stress Harassment & Bullying Employment Tribunals
Publications -
Post-
Case Hill v Clacton Family Trust Ltd (2006) IRS ER 839, CA
Ms H was employed by C Ltd as a care assistant in a home for young people with learning difficulties. In 2000 she took a group of children to a stunt event where a fatal accident occurred. No record was made of the effect of this fatality on the group. Ms H told colleagues that she had been very upset.
Later in 2000, Ms H told her GP that she was feeling anxious and paranoid. In 2001 she was summarily dismissed after she had gone to work suffering from the effects of an overdose of ecstasy. She told her GP that she was suffering from depression and she was referred to two psychiatrists.
A Social Security Appeal Tribunal (SSAT) ruled that Ms H was entitled to disability
living allowance at the highest rate from October 2001 because she was suffering
from post-
Ms H complained of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, arguing that she had been suffering from PTSD at the date of her dismissal. The employment tribunal ruled that she had not been a disabled person at the time of her dismissal and had not been suffering from PTSD at the time. She appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which dismissed the appeal. She then appealed further to the Court of Appeal.
Decision:
1. The employment tribunal had been entitled to find that Ms H had not been suffering from PTSD at the time of the dismissal.
2. The tribunal had considered the medical and other evidence and had concluded that Ms H had not actually experienced the trauma claimed.
3. There was no principle of law which bound the employment tribunal to follow a ruling by the SSAT that an employee was disabled by PTSD and entitled to receive disability living allowance. The concept of disability, for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act, was different from that of the statutory provisions applied by the SSAT.