Ms Joanne Neill v Dermalogica UK Ltd

Ms Joanne Neill v Dermalogica UK Ltd Case No: 2302572/2023

Facts

The Claimant, Joanne Neill, was employed by the Respondent, Dermalogica UK Ltd, since 1995, working part-time (two days a week) in the Facilities Department. From January 2022, Ms. Neill began experiencing severe depressive disorder, including anxiety and panic attacks. Her mental health declined, affecting her ability to carry out day-to-day tasks, leading to difficulties with focus, eating, housework, supporting her children, and causing emotional outbursts and suicidal thoughts. She received medical treatment and counselling for her condition. Key management personnel, including her line manager Ian White (from January 2022), Human Resources Head Sarah Beardsworth (from May 2022 at the latest), and Kerry Nicholson-Melvill (from April 2022), were aware of the Claimant's mental health issues.

Redundancy Process

In November 2022, a global directive required a 0.5 headcount reduction in the Facilities Department. The Claimant was identified for redundancy solely because she was part-time and fulfilled the "0.5 of a head" requirement. HR advised against HR presence at the redundancy meeting and to keep it very short, with no mention of consultation or a scoring process. On 17 November 2022, Ms. Neill was called to a meeting via Teams, on her non-working day, with little notice and an ambiguous title ("Catch Up"). In this meeting, she was told her role "has been selected for redundancy". The Claimant received no prior warning or opportunity to question the decision, and she was alone at home. This announcement significantly worsened her already fragile mental health. Although a subsequent letter stated her role was "at risk," and a second redundancy process began, the Claimant remained under the impression that she was going to lose her job, which was a "sham" process. Ultimately, due to another employee's resignation, the Claimant was not selected for redundancy in the second process . However, she was left in "limbo" for months without clear communication or support for her return to work.

Held

The Employment Tribunal made the following judgments in Dermalogica Joanne Neill employment tribunal decision:

Disability

The Claimant was disabled at the material time (17 November 2022) as defined by the Equality Act 2010, due to her severe depressive disorder, which had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out day-to-day activities.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments

The Claimant's complaint succeeded. The Respondent had knowledge of her disability. The Respondent's practices (PCPs) – providing little notice, no context, holding the meeting via Teams on a non-working day, and informing her she was made redundant without thought for her being alone or accompanied – put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled individuals. The Respondent ought reasonably to have known she would be disadvantaged, given their knowledge of her mental health. It would have been reasonable for the Respondent to take steps such as holding the meeting on a working day in the office (providing support and HR access), giving more notice and context, providing an opportunity for her to be accompanied, and following correct redundancy procedure. The Respondent failed to take these steps.

Indirect Sex Discrimination

The Claimant's complaint succeeded regarding the first redundancy process. The PCP of selecting a part-time employee for redundancy to meet a 0.5 FTE reduction was applied to the Claimant, who was selected because she was part-time. This PCP put women at a particular disadvantage, as more women generally work part-time than men, thus placing them at greater risk of redundancy. The PCP was not a proportionate means of pursuing a legitimate aim.

Breach of Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

The Claimant's claim succeeded. She was treated less favourably than a full-time employee by being told she would be made redundant because she was part-time ("half a head"), and this treatment was not justified on objective grounds.

Remedy

An award of £20,000 was made, placed in the Middle Vento band, plus interest of £3,331.51, for a total of £23,331.51 for Injury to Feelings. The Tribunal found the impact was substantial and lasted over two years, from the announcement on 17.11.2022 to the remedy hearing on 17.12.2024, significantly exacerbated by the Respondent's actions and lack of support. A bonus of £688.55 (based on company performance) plus interest of £22.02 was awarded, totalling £710.57.

Comment

The case highlights several critical aspects of employment law and employer responsibilities:

Significant Impact of Process on Mental Health

The tribunal found that the way the redundancy announcement was handled significantly exacerbated the Claimant's existing severe depressive disorder. The lack of empathy, support, and basic procedural fairness, especially when management was aware of her vulnerability, was a central factor in the successful claims.

Importance of Reasonable Adjustments

The judgment reinforces the duty of employers to consider and implement reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. In this case, simple steps like providing proper notice, context, conducting the meeting in person on a working day, and allowing a companion could have mitigated the severe mental health impact.

Indirect Discrimination Against Part-Time Workers (and Women)

The case clearly demonstrates how a seemingly neutral policy (reducing headcount by "0.5 FTE") can lead to indirect sex discrimination, as women are statistically more likely to work part-time and thus disproportionately affected by such criteria.

Less Favourable Treatment of Part-Time Employees

Directly selecting an employee for redundancy because they are part-time, described as "half a head," constitutes less favourable treatment and a breach of the Part-Time Workers Regulations.

Employer Accountability for Process

The Respondent's failure to follow a correct redundancy procedure from the outset, including the initial misleading communication and the subsequent "sham" processes, contributed to the Claimant's distress and the final awards. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's attempt to minimize the duration of the harm caused.