Patricia Murphy, who worked for Northumberland County Council from 1999 until her dismissal on the grounds of ill-health in 2017, won her North Shields employment tribunal hearing alleging discrimination and harassment.
A poor employee/manager relationship resulted in the claimant being asked how long “this disabled thing” was going to continue.
Miss Murphy, who has a physical impairment to her feet following an injury, worked for Northumberland County Council as a social worker until her dismissal. She started work for the council in 1999, becoming a social worker in 2001. In 2008 she became a team manager, responsible for 9/10 social workers. She had an excellent attendance record.
In 2014, Miss Murphy injured her foot.
In 2015, the council received complaints and Miss Murphy was suspended and given a written warning. She was demoted from team leader to an independent reviewing officer, a role that required Miss Murphy to be fully mobile and involved travelling across the county to see children.
After the suspension, Miss Murphy had an x-ray taken which showed nerve damage. She was advised that surgery was needed to correct the condition and went off work in February 2016.
Miss Murphy met Karen MacDonald - her line manager - and Amanda Atkinson - the HR Adviser for the council - in October 2016. She was informed that she could not return as a team manager and she replied that she could not return to a full independent reviewing officer role - but could do some work. The tribunal had the impression that relations were strained between Miss Murphy and her two interviewers.
It was agreed that Miss Murphy would to return to work on 7th November and a foot rest was provided for her. However, she was then away from work from 23rd December 2016 not returning until late in August 2017. During this period an occupational health report found that she was still unfit for work and despite two attempts by her line manager and HR Adviser, they were unsuccessful in arranging a meeting.
On 14th August, a meeting took place between the line manager, the HR Adviser and Miss Murphy - where Miss Murphy requested that she be able to use her annual leave to extend her return to work. The request was refused and she was told that she would be expected back to work in the role of independent reviewing officer taking on a full caseload, four weeks after her return – failing which she would be dismissed. During the meeting, the line manager stated that Miss Murphy’s behaviour was like that of an angry, stroppy teenager’ and that she felt like she wanted to ‘poke Miss Murphy’s eyes out’ because of her behaviour during her first return to work in November 2016.
On 21st August, Miss Murphy was given audit work to carry out. At the beginning of September, another occupational health report stated that, at that time Miss Murphy did not have the capacity to return to the independent reviewing officer role - and that this could be so for the following six months, with no certainty that she would be able to cope with all aspects of the role after that and suggested that the phased return should be extended by annual leave.
In September another meeting was held with the line manager and the HR Adviser at which Miss Murphy asked if there were any roles she could move to while her feet improved. The line manager replied by asking how long ‘this disabled thing’ was going on. Miss Murphy was then told she would be dismissed and - at a final meeting at the end of September she was dismissed on the grounds of ill-health capability in ongoing health.
The tribunal found the council had failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments; discriminated against Murphy because of her disability and unfairly dismissed her. It dismissed the victimisation claim.
The Judge said that the line manager’s remark about feeling like poking Miss Murphy’s eyes out by reason of her behaviour ‘should never fall from the lips of a senior manager’ - but were not an act of harassment or discrimination.
He added:
“The effect was to violate her dignity or at least to create an intimidating and hostile environment for the claimant. Instead they are indicative of the poor relationship which by then had developed between the claimant and her line manager.”
Andrew Willis - Head of Legal at HR-inform - said the case is a reminder of the need for professional and appropriate communication between managers and employees - regardless of how frustrating the situation is.
“With disability discrimination tribunal claims notably on the rise, make sure managers have training on being emphatic, holding sensitive conversations and dealing with difficult members of staff. This can be the difference between an unlimited compensation award and managing the situation in line with best practice and the needs of your business.”
