In Hill v Lloyds Bank PLC, H is disabled, suffering from a reactive depression which she said resulted from being bullied and harassed by colleagues at work. On her return to work after a period of sick leave she sought an undertaking from Lloyds that they would not require her to work with the two colleagues concerned and, if at a later stage there was no alternative, she would be offered a severance package equivalent to that provided on redundancy. Lloyds refused. The EAT agreed with the ET that Lloyds had failed to make reasonable adjustments. Lloyds had a “practice” of not giving firm undertakings in circumstances like these. H had been put at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with others because she suffered a level of anxiety and fear about the possibility that she would be required to work with the colleagues in the absence of an undertaking which a non-disabled person who had been bullied and harassed would not have. Giving such an undertaking would have lessened the disadvantage as it would have alleviated H’s fear and it was reasonable for Lloyds to do so.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
