Murphy v States Employment Board: [2024] TRE 094

In this case, the claimant, a senior officer in Revenue Jersey brought claims against the States Employment Board following their dismissal whole on long-term sick leave due to stress.  The Tribunal considered claims of victimisation, discrimination arising from disability and unfair dismissal, alongside a counterclaim by the employer for unreturned property.  The victimisation and counterclaim were dismissed at the outset.

A central issue was whether the claimant’s work related stress constituted a disability under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013.  The Tribunal found that it did, based on the cumulative duration and impact of her condition.  It noted that the claimant had been signed off for 5 months and 2 weeks, with a further 5 weeks certification in place at the time of dismissal.  This brought the total period to over six months, satisfying the requirement for a long-term impairment under paragraph 8(4)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013.

The Tribunal also accepted that the claimant’s symptoms, namely: stress, anxiety, panic attacks, low mood, and sleep disturbance amounted to a mental impairment, even in the absence of a formal diagnosis.  It emphasised that Jersey’s legal framework does not require a ‘substantial adverse effect’, thus distinguishing it from the position under the Equality Act 2010.  The Tribunal emphasised that just being signed off from stress on its own does not demonstrate the presence of a mental impairment.  There may be instances where a person may be suffering from stress but the stress itself does not amount to a mental impairment.

The Tribunal found that the claimant’s dismissal, which was based in part on their prolonged absence, constituted unfavourable treatment arising from her disability.  This was due to the employer failing to demonstrate that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, particularly as it had not explored alternative roles outside the claimant’s department.

The Tribunal was critical of the employer’s approach to redeployment.   Although one alternative role was offered, it was within the same department and declined by the claimant.  The Tribunal found that:

• The employer did not adequately consider roles within its other departments;
• The managing absence policy placed a shared responsibility on both parties to identify a suitable role
• The employer’s failure to broaden the search for alternative employment rendered the dismissal disproportionate and discriminatory.

While the Tribunal found in favour of the claimant on key legal issues, it also highlighted her contributory conduct namely:

• They did not fully engage in the redeployment process
• They rejected a settlement offer that matched the maximum statutory award

As such, the Tribunal reduced any award by 100%, resulting in no award being made for unfair dismissal.

Comment 

This case is a wake-up call for employers: stress-related conditions can amount to a disability even without a formal diagnosis, and dismissing an employee without meaningfully exploring alternative roles—especially across a large organisation—can be both discriminatory and unfair. The Tribunal made clear that “long-term” means more than six months, including future certified absence, and that proportionality is key.  But it also sent a message to employees: failing to engage with redeployment or rejecting reasonable settlement offers can cost you compensation, even if you win the case