Mrs S Bradley v The Royal Mint Ltd

Mrs S Bradley v The Royal Mint Ltd 1601525/2022

Fact

Mrs. S. Bradley, who held the position of Director of HR at The Royal Mint (RM), had a well-documented history of depression and anxiety dating back to 2013, with an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnosis received in 2022. Her employer was aware of these conditions. Known for her impatience and occasional emotional outbursts, Mrs. Bradley had previously attempted to resign twice, in 2019 and 2021, during periods when she was unwell. On those occasions, her manager, Ms. Jessop, consistently refused to accept her resignations, acknowledging her compromised state of mind.

In April 2022, Mrs. Bradley made the decision to cease her antidepressant medication and simultaneously began a new treatment for ADHD. This change in medication profoundly impacted her, leading to a period of deep depression, suicidal ideation, and intensified emotional outbursts, although she largely managed to conceal these struggles in the workplace. Additionally, her hormone replacement therapy (HRT) medication was altered in May 2022, a factor the Tribunal noted as likely influencing her mental health.

On June 15, 2022, during a meeting with Ms. Jessop, Mrs. Bradley announced her resignation, citing an intention to pursue more lucrative career opportunities, specifically in the interim market in London. This resignation was accepted by Ms. Jessop, who observed Mrs. Bradley to be calm and not visibly distressed, a stark contrast to her previous resignation attempts. Following this, Mrs. Bradley approved a business announcement regarding her departure a week later and formally confirmed her resignation in writing on June 27, 2022.

Approximately three weeks later, on July 6, 2022, Mrs. Bradley sought to withdraw her resignation. She informed Ms. Jessop that she "had not been herself" when she tendered it, emphasizing that she was "extremely ill and seeking psychiatric support" to find the correct medication balance. However, her manager denied this request. The Royal Mint maintained the belief that her medical conditions did not influence her resignation on this occasion, instead concluding that she had resigned for financial reasons, given her calm demeanor and lack of visible distress at the time of resignation.

Held

The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that Mrs. Bradley's claims for direct and indirect sex discrimination, as well as direct disability discrimination, were not substantiated and were therefore dismissed. However, her complaint for discrimination arising from disability, specifically concerning The Royal Mint's refusal to allow her to rescind her resignation, was found to be well-founded and succeeded.

The Tribunal accepted comprehensive medical evidence which demonstrated that Mrs. Bradley's mental state was significantly impacted by the changes to her psychotropic medication, including side-effects from her ADHD medication and likely withdrawal effects from stopping her antidepressant medication, at the critical time of her resignation. The experts involved in the case jointly agreed that these factors had a profound influence on her decision to resign. The ET concluded that Mrs. Bradley had indeed resigned due to her mental health and that the employer's refusal to permit her to withdraw her resignation constituted unfavorable treatment.

The Royal Mint argued that allowing a senior employee to retract a publicly announced resignation would destabilize the business. The Tribunal acknowledged and accepted this as a legitimate aim.

Nevertheless, the Tribunal was not convinced that The Royal Mint's actions were proportionate in achieving this aim. The ET determined that by July 27 or 28, 2022, when Mrs. Bradley explicitly communicated, via email to the leadership team and board, that her resignation was attributable to her disabilities and medication changes, the employer was clearly on notice of the link. At that juncture, the Tribunal found that The Royal Mint should have undertaken measures to properly inform themselves about how Mrs. Bradley’s mental health and ADHD had influenced her decision to resign, potentially by seeking informed medical advice.

Instead, The Royal Mint relied on their own observations and assumptions regarding her motivations, effectively disregarding her explanation because they simply did not believe it. The Tribunal concluded that The Royal Mint was not medically qualified to make such assessments, and their disbelief led them to close their minds to the possibility that her resignation was indeed a consequence of her disabilities. Consequently, while the refusal to allow the retraction served a legitimate business aim, it was deemed not a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

Comment

The case of Bradley v The Royal Mint Ltd underscores the critical importance for employers to exercise significant care when faced with employee requests to retract a resignation, especially when a disability is later cited as a contributing factor. While the general rule states that a clear and unambiguous resignation cannot be unilaterally withdrawn, exceptions are recognized. This case notably expands on the "heat of the moment" resignation scenario by highlighting situations where the resignation itself is directly attributable to a disability.

For employers, proactive investigation into the context of a resignation is crucial to ascertain if the employee's decision was truly conscious and rational, particularly if a known disability is involved. Key takeaways for employers from this judgment include:

• Considering whether a resignation could be attributable to a disability, even if an internal announcement has been made and there is a seemingly legitimate business reason for not permitting the retraction.

• Ensuring that managers and HR personnel receive training to identify when an employee's mental health might be a factor influencing their resignation. Offering a "cooling off period" can be a reasonable step to allow an individual time to reconsider an impulsive decision.

• Most significantly, if an employee explicitly links their resignation to a mental health condition, employers should consider obtaining medical advice from a qualified professional. This is vital to gain an understanding of the condition and its potential impact on the employee's behavior.

The Tribunal's decision clearly indicates that relying solely on internal observations, or presumptions about an employee's motivations, particularly when contradicted by the employee's own explanation linking the resignation to a disability, can result in expensive disability discrimination claims. The employer's responsibility is to balance legitimate business objectives against the potential discriminatory impact of their refusal, always exploring less discriminatory alternatives. Simply citing business disruption or inconvenience, without a thorough medical assessment and consideration of alternatives, may not be sufficient justification. It is important to remember that this was an Employment Tribunal decision and as such, it is not binding precedent for other cases.