An HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) trainee has been awarded more than £155,000. This comes after an Employment Tribunal upheld claims including failure to make reasonable adjustments for mental health, disability-related harassment and victimisation.

The case involved Mr Wickham, the Claimant, who brought Employment Tribunal proceedings against The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and Ms J Rockett.

For employers, the judgment highlights the risks of failing to properly respond to information about an employee’s mental health. As for employees, it demonstrates how the duty to make reasonable adjustments can apply where a condition places a disabled worker at a substantial disadvantage.

If you have any concerns about your employment rights, contact us. Redmans Solicitors are experts in the employment sector. Following a brief chat, we can assess your case, answer your queries, and discuss your options going forward.

To learn more about how we can help you, simply:

• Give us a call on 020 3397 3603
• Request a callback by filling out our online form

Reasonable Adjustments for Mental Health: Case Background

The Claimant joined HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service as a trainee investigator in April 2019. During recruitment, the Claimant disclosed that he had previously taken sickness absence following an attack while working as a prison officer. The incident had affected his mental health and caused symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

However, information about his mental health history was not effectively communicated to his managers. An occupational health assessment after he joined HMRC reported that his anxiety was settled at that point.

Read More: Mental Health Support at Work: Poundland Unveils New Approach

Problems subsequently emerged with the Claimant’s training progress, particularly during 2020 and 2021. In March 2021, he told a manager that he was again experiencing mental health difficulties and was close to receiving a diagnosis of PTSD or a similar condition. The following month, an occupational health report concluded that his symptoms were undoubtedly affecting his performance.

Despite this, internal communications considered by the Tribunal showed managers referring to the Claimant’s explanations as excuses. Discussions also took place about moving him into another role.

By late June 2021, the Claimant had been signed off work with depression. Then, in August, he was informed that he had failed his training assessment period.

The Tribunal subsequently concluded that the decision to fail his training at that point had been premature. His claim for direct disability discrimination was dismissed. However, his claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments, disability-related harassment and victimisation succeeded.

Key Failures by HMRC

A central issue was HMRC’s response once the Claimant’s mental health difficulties and their effect on his work became apparent. The Tribunal found that HMRC knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that his disability placed him at a substantial disadvantage.

That distinction matters. An employer cannot necessarily avoid its responsibilities simply because information about an employee’s condition has not reached the right manager or because the employee hasn’t repeatedly requested specific adjustments.

In the Claimant’s case, occupational health evidence indicated that his mental health symptoms were affecting his performance. Yet managers continued with the training and assessment process without adequately adapting it to address the disadvantage he was experiencing.

The case also went considerably further than a simple procedural failure. After the Claimant was told that he had failed his training, he stated that he believed he had been treated as a problem since disclosing his mental health difficulties. He also said that he had disclosed his health issues during recruitment and was seeking legal advice.

The Tribunal treated this as a protected act for the purposes of his subsequent victimisation claim. His assessor, Ms J Rockett, then raised a formal grievance alleging that the Claimant had lied about disclosing his mental health history, despite occupational health records supporting the fact that he had previously provided relevant information.

The Claimant was investigated for possible gross misconduct and received a formal written warning. That warning was later overturned on appeal. The Tribunal found that senior employees had effectively colluded to “dig the dirt” on him. His complaints of victimisation at work and disability-related harassment were ultimately upheld alongside the reasonable-adjustments claim.

The Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments for Mental Health

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers can have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled employee would otherwise be placed at a substantial disadvantage.

That protection is not restricted to physical disabilities. Long-term mental health conditions may amount to disabilities for Equality Act purposes where the relevant statutory requirements are met. Employers therefore need to consider reasonable adjustments for mental health just as seriously as adjustments relating to physical conditions.

What counts as reasonable will depend on the circumstances. The Equality and Human Rights Commission explains that relevant considerations can include how effective an adjustment would be at removing the disadvantage, how practical it is, its cost, the employer’s resources and the availability of financial assistance.

Read More: Coca-Cola’s Dismissal Deemed Unfair: Tribunal Sides With Employee Battling Mental Health Issues

The objective should be to remove or reduce the disadvantage experienced by the disabled worker as far as reasonably possible. Depending on the employee and their role, reasonable adjustments for mental health could potentially involve changes to deadlines or workloads, additional supervision or support, altered working hours, more frequent breaks, changes to communication methods or modifications to performance-management and training arrangements.

Crucially, employers should not assume that treating everybody identically is necessarily fair. Equality law may require an employer to change its usual procedures to prevent a disabled worker from being placed at a substantial disadvantage.

Victimisation at Work: A Separate Risk for Employers

The case is also an important illustration of workplace victimisation. Under equality legislation, victimisation can arise where someone suffers a detriment because they have carried out a protected act, such as making an allegation of discrimination or taking steps connected with their Equality Act rights. That means an employer’s legal exposure may not end with the original discrimination complaint.

How managers respond after an employee raises concerns can create an additional problem. Employers should therefore be particularly careful when disciplinary proceedings, investigations, negative performance decisions or grievances arise shortly after an employee complains about discrimination.

Such action is not automatically unlawful. However, employers should be able to demonstrate a legitimate and properly evidenced reason for their decisions, independent of the employee’s protected complaint. In the Claimant’s case, the Tribunal upheld his complaints of victimisation as well as his disability-related claims.

The Tribunal’s £155,000 Award

The consequences for HMRC were substantial. The Claimant was awarded £155,077 on an interim basis, pending a further remedy hearing to determine full compensation.

The reported award included £77,193 for past financial losses, together with approximately £16,684 in interest, as well as £42,000 for injury to feelings and approximately £19,200 in associated interest. The size of the award reflects the potentially serious financial consequences of discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The Tribunal also accepted medical evidence that the Claimant’s mental health had deteriorated following the discriminatory treatment. At the remedy stage, the conduct was described as one of the most shocking cases of systemic bullying and discrimination encountered by the Tribunal, with the panel finding that the impact on the Claimant had been profound.

The case therefore illustrates that compensation in discrimination claims can extend significantly beyond straightforward lost wages. Depending on the circumstances, awards may reflect financial losses and injury to feelings, together with applicable interest.

Key Insights for Employers

The most important lesson is that reasonable adjustments should be treated as an active process rather than a box-ticking exercise. Once an employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that an employee has a disability and is experiencing a substantial disadvantage, managers should consider what practical changes could address that disadvantage.

Occupational health recommendations should be properly reviewed rather than simply placed on file. Managers should also understand that declining performance can sometimes be connected to a disability rather than capability, motivation or attitude.

Internal communication matters too. Information about adjustments and health-related restrictions needs to reach the people making decisions about an employee’s training, workload, attendance or performance, subject to appropriate confidentiality requirements.

Finally, complaints about discrimination should be handled objectively. Retaliatory conduct, or action that could amount to victimisation at work, can turn an existing workplace dispute into a much more serious legal problem.

Key Insights for Employees

Employees experiencing mental health difficulties at work may benefit from explaining not only that they have a health condition but also how it affects them in practical terms. For example, an employee might identify difficulties meeting particular deadlines, concentrating for prolonged periods, or completing assessments under standard conditions.

Keeping written records can also be valuable. Emails requesting support, occupational health reports, fit notes, meeting notes and records of agreed adjustments may become important if a dispute later develops.

Employees who believe they are being disadvantaged because of a mental health condition may wish to raise the issue with their manager or HR team and identify adjustments that could reduce the disadvantage. Where an employee believes they are experiencing discrimination or workplace victimisation, obtaining specialist advice at an early stage may also be important because strict time limits generally apply to Employment Tribunal claims.

Reasonable Adjustments for Mental Health: Our Final Thoughts

The above case demonstrates why employers need to take reasonable adjustments for mental health seriously. HMRC had information indicating that the Claimant was experiencing significant mental health difficulties and that those difficulties were affecting his performance. The Tribunal nevertheless concluded that reasonable steps were not taken to address the disadvantage before his training was failed.

Read More: What is Disability Harassment at Work? Gardener Wins £27k

What followed made matters worse. Allegations about his disclosure of his mental health history, disciplinary proceedings and conduct that ultimately resulted in successful findings of harassment and victimisation. The resulting award provides a stark reminder that a failure to make reasonable adjustments can have significant consequences.

For organisations, the practical message is straightforward. Listen when employees disclose mental health difficulties, investigate what support they need, take occupational health evidence seriously and document the adjustments considered and implemented. And when an employee raises concerns about discrimination, ensure that subsequent decisions are fair, evidence-based and free from retaliation. Doing so is not simply good workplace practice. In appropriate circumstances, it is a legal obligation.

Get Help with Redmans

If your employer has failed to make reasonable adjustments for your mental health, Redmans Solicitors can help. Our employment solicitors can advise you on your rights, assess your case, and guide you through the next steps.

To begin your journey with us now, please:

• Give us a call on 020 3397 3603
• Request a callback by filling out our online form