In Hill v Lloyds Bank plc, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirmed that an undertaking to a disabled employee, which involved paying her a severance package if there was no practical alternative to requiring her to work with colleagues who she alleged had bullied and harassed her, would have been a reasonable adjustment.
Mrs Hill has worked for Lloyds Bank for more than 30 years. She had taken sick leave between July 2016 and October 2017 as a result of stress she said was caused by bullying and harassment by two colleagues, M and B. Mrs Hill suffers from reactive depression.
On her return to work, it was agreed by all parties that Mrs Hill would no longer work with M and B, but she remained very anxious that this may be required at some future point. Mrs Hill therefore asked her employer to give an undertaking that she would not be required to work with or report to M and B and that, if business demands meant Lloyds had no practical alternative, she would be offered a severance package equivalent to redundancy. Lloyds refused.
Mrs Hill responded by bringing an Employment Tribunal claim against Lloyds for failing to make reasonable adjustments. It was accepted that her reactive depression was a disability. Mrs Hill argued that the bank’s failure to provide the undertaking sought placed her at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to someone who is not disabled. This was because she was constantly stressed, scared, and worried that she could be required to work with M or B, which worsened her symptoms.
Mrs Hill was successful in the Employment Tribunal, which found that Lloyds’ practice of not giving such undertakings placed Mrs Hill at a substantial disadvantage as it caused her to work in fear. It found that the undertaking sought by Mrs Hill would have been reasonable for the bank to provide.
Lloyds appealed and the case went to the EAT.
In relation to liability, the bank argued that its refusal to give an undertaking was not a ‘practice’, as required by the relevant legislation, but rather a single decision. This was rejected, as the Employment Tribunal had found that it was the bank’s practice not to give undertakings of this nature.
Lloyds also argued that it was not reasonable to require it to commit to paying a sizeable severance payment in the future, as Mrs Hill might not be redundant, and because the point of a reasonable adjustment is so that the employee can remain in employment. However, the EAT rejected this argument, seeing no reason why an undertaking to provide a disabled employee with prescribed benefits in certain future circumstances would not be reasonable. Here, the undertaking regarding severance pay had the purpose of allowing Mrs Hill to indeed work, without concern that she would need to work with or report to M or B. Thus, the undertaking had the underlying purpose of keeping Mrs Hill at work by enabling her to carry out her job without being afraid.
