In Secretary of State for Justice v Plaistow, the EAT considered a rare case where an employee had suffered such poor treatment and consequential harm that he was entitled to be compensated for the loss of his whole career.
Mr Plaistow worked as a prison officer from 2003 until his dismissal in 2016. He began to suffer harassment relating to his sexual orientation, and perceived sexual orientation, from 2014. He was asked about his sexuality and was regularly called words such as “vermin”. He faced direct discrimination in the form of a wrongly given absence warning. Following his return from sickness absence, the abuse only intensified. He was slapped, pushed, grabbed, had water squirted at him and a pink fairy cake smeared in his bag, and was told by his line manager that he was causing too many problems. His grievances were not dealt with. Having complained about the discrimination he faced and written to his MP about his treatment, Mr Plaistow was then victimised and unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct.
Mr Plaistow succeeded in a number of Employment Tribunal claims, including discrimination and harassment. The Employment Tribunal was therefore required to decide how much compensation Mr Plaistow should be awarded.
The Employment Tribunal heard medical evidence from psychiatrists who agreed that the discrimination Mr Plaistow experienced had significantly impacted his health. He had psychological damage, PTSD, depression, paranoia, and functional impairments such as disturbed sleep. The parties disagreed over whether Mr Plaistow would be able to recover and return to work, or whether his condition was likely to be permanent to the point that he had lost his career. Mr Plaistow was 38 years old at the time of his dismissal.
The Employment Tribunal decided that Mr Plaistow’s compensation should be based on career-long loss, resulting in an award worth over £2 million. The Secretary of State appealed, and the case went to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
The EAT rejected the Secretary of State’s challenge to Mr Plaistow’s award being based on the loss of his entire career. The Employment Tribunal had correctly considered what was likely to happen and was entitled to find that Mr Plaistow’s condition was likely to be life-long. However, the EAT accepted other aspects of the appeal.
