September 17, 2026
The Royal Court has overturned the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal’s (the Tribunal) decision in Murphy v States Employment Board providing important guidance on when work related stress may amount to a disability under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 (the Discrimination Law) and on the evidence required to establish a mental impairment.
The decision is particularly relevant to employers managing long-term sickness absence, capability processes, and potential disability discrimination claims.
Ms Murphy was employed by Revenue Jersey. She was dismissed on 28 February 2024 under the States of Jersey’s Managing Attendance Policy following a prolonged period of absence attributed to work-related stress.
She brough claims before the Tribunal for among other things:
The Tribunal found that Ms Murphy’s work-related stress amounted to a disability for the purposes of the Discrimination Law. It concluded that her dismissal amounted to unfavourable treatment arising from that disability and that the dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The dismissal was consequently automatically unfair under Article 70A of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 (the Employment Law). The Tribunal considered that stress, anxiety, panic attacks, low mood, and sleep deprivation could amount to a mental impairment notwithstanding the absence of a formal psychiatric diagnosis. The Tribunal had also placed considerable weight on the employer’s failure to explore alternative roles outside Revenue Jersey.
The States Employment Board appealed to the Royal Court on questions of law, including alleged errors in the Tribunal’s approach to disability and proportionality.
The Royal Court upheld the appeal. It emphasised that the fact an employee has suffered prolonged work-related stress, or has been absent from work for more than six months, does not by itself establish a mental impairment for the purposes of the Discrimination Law.
There must be evidence supporting the existence of the impairment itself.
The statutory definition of disability in Jersey requires a person to have one or more long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments, which can adversely affect their ability to engage or participate in an activity protected by the Discrimination Law.
The Royal Court accepted the distinction between:
In particular, the Court noted that a reaction to workplace circumstances can become prolonged or entrenched without necessarily amounting to a mental impairment. A lengthy period of sickness absence is therefore not conclusive evidence of disability.
This is an important qualification to the first instance decision.
The Court confirmed that the burden of establishing disability rests with the claimant, on the balance of probabilities.
This is significant in cases involving disputed mental impairment. The question is not simply whether an employee has reported symptoms such as stress, anxiety, poor sleep or low mood. The evidence must establish where the issue is disputed, that those symptoms arise from an underlying mental impairment meeting the statutory test.
The Court referred to the difficulties which can arise in establishing mental impairment and the importance of appropriate medical evidence.
This was central to the Court’s decision. The Tribunal relied upon several GP letters referring to symptoms including anxiety, panic attacks, low mood and sleep difficulties. However, an Occupational Health assessment conducted in January 2024 had concluded that Ms Murphy showed no signs of a specific mental illness and that her difficulties appeared to be directly related to work-related stress.
The Court considered the Occupational Health evidence to be particularly important because it was directed to the issue in dispute and followed a specific assessment. The Court found that the Tribunal had not adequately explained why it rejected that evidence. The Court stated that where expert evidence does not support a finding of mental impairment, and there is no clear contrary evidence, the Tribunal must explain sufficiently why that evidence is being disregarded.
The Court ultimately concluded that the Tribunal’s reasoning from the reported symptoms and behaviours to the existence of a mental impairment was unclear and flawed.
This judgment should not be read as establishing a requirement for a formal psychiatric diagnosis in every disability case. That would go further than the judgment. Rather, the important distinction is between absence of a formal diagnosis and absence of evidence of a mental impairment. A claimant may potentially establish disability without a formal diagnosis. However, where the existence of a mental impairment is disputed, there needs to be sufficiently cogent evidence from which the Tribunal can properly conclude that an impairment exists.
For employers, this means that Occupational Health referrals and reports can be particularly important where an employee asserts that work-related stress constitutes a disability. For employees, it means that reliance solely upon certificates of sickness absence or descriptions of stress symptoms may be insufficient where disability is contested.
The Court also overturned the Tribunal’s conclusion that the dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Tribunal had accepted that the employer had legitimate aims, including managing the employee’s prolonged absence and the impact of the vacancy on a small team. The Tribunal also accepted that the employer had made reasonable attempts to address the underlying workplace issues. The Tribunal nevertheless concluded that the employer should have explored whether Ms Murphy could undertake a role elsewhere within the States before dismissing her. The Court considered that conclusion irrational in light of the Tribunal’s own findings.
The Tribunal had found, amongst other things that:
Against that background, the Court found it difficult to understand how the Tribunal could properly conclude that the dismissal was not proportionate.
The judgment provides useful reassurance to employers, but it should not be interpreted as giving employers a free hand to dismiss employees suffering from work-related stress.
The principal lessons are as follows:
Employers should avoid both extremes. It is unsafe to assume that an employee suffering from stress automatically has a disability. Equally, an employer should not assume that work-related stress can never amount to a disability merely because it is caused by workplace circumstances.
Where disability is potentially relevant, employers should obtain appropriate medical or Occupational Health advice addressing the actual questions that arise. In particular employers should consider asking whether:
The quality and purpose of the evidence will also matter. An Occupational Health report which expressly addresses the relevant questions may be considerably more useful than a collection of sickness certificates which merely record ‘stress’ or similar symptoms.
Where a dismissal may amount to discrimination arising from disability, the employer will need to consider whether the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That evidence should be documented. The employer should be able to demonstrate:
This is particularly important where the employee has a potentially relevant disability.
The Tribunal’s original decision raised a potentially significant concern for large employers, namely whether an employer might be expected to conduct a wide ranging search of its organisation for alternative employment before dismissing an employee whose absence arises from disability.
The Court’s decision provides some qualification to that concern. It did not however establish a general rule that redeployment outside an employee’s immediate department can always be disregarded.
Rather, it found that the Tribunal’s particular conclusion was irrational in the circumstances of this case, given its other findings about the employer’s conduct and the employee’s engagement with the process.
Employers should therefore continue to consider potentially suitable alternative roles where disability is engaged, particularly where their own policies contemplate redeployment.
One practical lesson is particularly important. The Tribunal’s original decision was critical of the fact that the individual who made the dismissal decision did not give evidence explaining their reasoning. Employers should therefore ensure that the decision-maker’s reasoning is properly recorded at the time of the decision. Minutes, decision records and dismissal letters should accurately explain:
A contemporaneous and accurate decision record will be valuable if the decision is subsequently challenged.
The decision also provides important guidance for employees pursuing disability discrimination claims. An employee who considers that stress, anxiety, or another mental health condition constitutes a disability should not assume that prolonged absence will establish that point automatically. Where disability is likely to be disputed, the employee should consider obtaining appropriate medical evidence addressing the nature and duration of the condition and its impact.
The judgment also reinforces the importance of engaging constructively with an employer’s absence management and redeployment processes.
An employee who refuses reasonable alternatives, or declines to engage with potential adjustments or redeployment may materially weaken their position, even where they establish that they have a disability.
The most significant aspect of this decision is the Court’s insistence upon maintaining a proper distinction between symptoms, circumstances and impairment. The Tribunal had recognised that stress does not automatically amount to a mental impairment. However, the Court considered its reasoning did not properly demonstrate how the evidential threshold had been met in this particular case. The decision therefore provides a useful corrective to any suggestion that a period of more than six months’ stress-related absence will, by itself, establish disability.
At the same time, the judgment does not diminish the importance of disability discrimination protections for employees with genuine mental-health conditions.
The safest approach for employers remains to treat disability as a question requiring proper investigation rather than assumption.
The key practical message is therefore not that stress is never a disability, but that disability must be established by evidence and the employer’s decision must be capable of being justified on the evidence available at the time.
Workplace stress, long-term absence, and potential disability can raise difficult legal and practical questions for both employers and employees. Our Employment Law team can advise employers on managing absence, reasonable adjustments, redeployment and potential discrimination issues, while also supporting employees who have concerns about their treatment at work or their rights under Jersey employment and discrimination law.
If you need advice on your circumstances, get in touch with our team.
The Royal Court has overturned the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal’s (the Tribunal) decision in Murphy v States Employment Board providing important guidance on when work related stress may amount to a disability under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 (the Discrimination Law) and on the evidence required to establish a mental impairment.
The decision is particularly relevant to employers managing long-term sickness absence, capability processes, and potential disability discrimination claims.
Ms Murphy was employed by Revenue Jersey. She was dismissed on 28 February 2024 under the States of Jersey’s Managing Attendance Policy following a prolonged period of absence attributed to work-related stress.
She brough claims before the Tribunal for among other things:
The Tribunal found that Ms Murphy’s work-related stress amounted to a disability for the purposes of the Discrimination Law. It concluded that her dismissal amounted to unfavourable treatment arising from that disability and that the dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The dismissal was consequently automatically unfair under Article 70A of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 (the Employment Law). The Tribunal considered that stress, anxiety, panic attacks, low mood, and sleep deprivation could amount to a mental impairment notwithstanding the absence of a formal psychiatric diagnosis. The Tribunal had also placed considerable weight on the employer’s failure to explore alternative roles outside Revenue Jersey.
The States Employment Board appealed to the Royal Court on questions of law, including alleged errors in the Tribunal’s approach to disability and proportionality.
The Royal Court upheld the appeal. It emphasised that the fact an employee has suffered prolonged work-related stress, or has been absent from work for more than six months, does not by itself establish a mental impairment for the purposes of the Discrimination Law.
There must be evidence supporting the existence of the impairment itself.
The statutory definition of disability in Jersey requires a person to have one or more long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments, which can adversely affect their ability to engage or participate in an activity protected by the Discrimination Law.
The Royal Court accepted the distinction between:
In particular, the Court noted that a reaction to workplace circumstances can become prolonged or entrenched without necessarily amounting to a mental impairment. A lengthy period of sickness absence is therefore not conclusive evidence of disability.
This is an important qualification to the first instance decision.
The Court confirmed that the burden of establishing disability rests with the claimant, on the balance of probabilities.
This is significant in cases involving disputed mental impairment. The question is not simply whether an employee has reported symptoms such as stress, anxiety, poor sleep or low mood. The evidence must establish where the issue is disputed, that those symptoms arise from an underlying mental impairment meeting the statutory test.
The Court referred to the difficulties which can arise in establishing mental impairment and the importance of appropriate medical evidence.
This was central to the Court’s decision. The Tribunal relied upon several GP letters referring to symptoms including anxiety, panic attacks, low mood and sleep difficulties. However, an Occupational Health assessment conducted in January 2024 had concluded that Ms Murphy showed no signs of a specific mental illness and that her difficulties appeared to be directly related to work-related stress.
The Court considered the Occupational Health evidence to be particularly important because it was directed to the issue in dispute and followed a specific assessment. The Court found that the Tribunal had not adequately explained why it rejected that evidence. The Court stated that where expert evidence does not support a finding of mental impairment, and there is no clear contrary evidence, the Tribunal must explain sufficiently why that evidence is being disregarded.
The Court ultimately concluded that the Tribunal’s reasoning from the reported symptoms and behaviours to the existence of a mental impairment was unclear and flawed.
This judgment should not be read as establishing a requirement for a formal psychiatric diagnosis in every disability case. That would go further than the judgment. Rather, the important distinction is between absence of a formal diagnosis and absence of evidence of a mental impairment. A claimant may potentially establish disability without a formal diagnosis. However, where the existence of a mental impairment is disputed, there needs to be sufficiently cogent evidence from which the Tribunal can properly conclude that an impairment exists.
For employers, this means that Occupational Health referrals and reports can be particularly important where an employee asserts that work-related stress constitutes a disability. For employees, it means that reliance solely upon certificates of sickness absence or descriptions of stress symptoms may be insufficient where disability is contested.
The Court also overturned the Tribunal’s conclusion that the dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Tribunal had accepted that the employer had legitimate aims, including managing the employee’s prolonged absence and the impact of the vacancy on a small team. The Tribunal also accepted that the employer had made reasonable attempts to address the underlying workplace issues. The Tribunal nevertheless concluded that the employer should have explored whether Ms Murphy could undertake a role elsewhere within the States before dismissing her. The Court considered that conclusion irrational in light of the Tribunal’s own findings.
The Tribunal had found, amongst other things that:
Against that background, the Court found it difficult to understand how the Tribunal could properly conclude that the dismissal was not proportionate.
The judgment provides useful reassurance to employers, but it should not be interpreted as giving employers a free hand to dismiss employees suffering from work-related stress.
The principal lessons are as follows:
Employers should avoid both extremes. It is unsafe to assume that an employee suffering from stress automatically has a disability. Equally, an employer should not assume that work-related stress can never amount to a disability merely because it is caused by workplace circumstances.
Where disability is potentially relevant, employers should obtain appropriate medical or Occupational Health advice addressing the actual questions that arise. In particular employers should consider asking whether:
The quality and purpose of the evidence will also matter. An Occupational Health report which expressly addresses the relevant questions may be considerably more useful than a collection of sickness certificates which merely record ‘stress’ or similar symptoms.
Where a dismissal may amount to discrimination arising from disability, the employer will need to consider whether the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That evidence should be documented. The employer should be able to demonstrate:
This is particularly important where the employee has a potentially relevant disability.
The Tribunal’s original decision raised a potentially significant concern for large employers, namely whether an employer might be expected to conduct a wide ranging search of its organisation for alternative employment before dismissing an employee whose absence arises from disability.
The Court’s decision provides some qualification to that concern. It did not however establish a general rule that redeployment outside an employee’s immediate department can always be disregarded.
Rather, it found that the Tribunal’s particular conclusion was irrational in the circumstances of this case, given its other findings about the employer’s conduct and the employee’s engagement with the process.
Employers should therefore continue to consider potentially suitable alternative roles where disability is engaged, particularly where their own policies contemplate redeployment.
One practical lesson is particularly important. The Tribunal’s original decision was critical of the fact that the individual who made the dismissal decision did not give evidence explaining their reasoning. Employers should therefore ensure that the decision-maker’s reasoning is properly recorded at the time of the decision. Minutes, decision records and dismissal letters should accurately explain:
A contemporaneous and accurate decision record will be valuable if the decision is subsequently challenged.
The decision also provides important guidance for employees pursuing disability discrimination claims. An employee who considers that stress, anxiety, or another mental health condition constitutes a disability should not assume that prolonged absence will establish that point automatically. Where disability is likely to be disputed, the employee should consider obtaining appropriate medical evidence addressing the nature and duration of the condition and its impact.
The judgment also reinforces the importance of engaging constructively with an employer’s absence management and redeployment processes.
An employee who refuses reasonable alternatives, or declines to engage with potential adjustments or redeployment may materially weaken their position, even where they establish that they have a disability.
The most significant aspect of this decision is the Court’s insistence upon maintaining a proper distinction between symptoms, circumstances and impairment. The Tribunal had recognised that stress does not automatically amount to a mental impairment. However, the Court considered its reasoning did not properly demonstrate how the evidential threshold had been met in this particular case. The decision therefore provides a useful corrective to any suggestion that a period of more than six months’ stress-related absence will, by itself, establish disability.
At the same time, the judgment does not diminish the importance of disability discrimination protections for employees with genuine mental-health conditions.
The safest approach for employers remains to treat disability as a question requiring proper investigation rather than assumption.
The key practical message is therefore not that stress is never a disability, but that disability must be established by evidence and the employer’s decision must be capable of being justified on the evidence available at the time.
Workplace stress, long-term absence, and potential disability can raise difficult legal and practical questions for both employers and employees. Our Employment Law team can advise employers on managing absence, reasonable adjustments, redeployment and potential discrimination issues, while also supporting employees who have concerns about their treatment at work or their rights under Jersey employment and discrimination law.
If you need advice on your circumstances, get in touch with our team.
The Royal Court has overturned the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal’s (the Tribunal) decision in Murphy v States Employment Board providing important guidance on when work related stress may amount to a disability under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 (the Discrimination Law) and on the evidence required to establish a mental impairment.
The decision is particularly relevant to employers managing long-term sickness absence, capability processes, and potential disability discrimination claims.
Ms Murphy was employed by Revenue Jersey. She was dismissed on 28 February 2024 under the States of Jersey’s Managing Attendance Policy following a prolonged period of absence attributed to work-related stress.
She brough claims before the Tribunal for among other things:
The Tribunal found that Ms Murphy’s work-related stress amounted to a disability for the purposes of the Discrimination Law. It concluded that her dismissal amounted to unfavourable treatment arising from that disability and that the dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The dismissal was consequently automatically unfair under Article 70A of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 (the Employment Law). The Tribunal considered that stress, anxiety, panic attacks, low mood, and sleep deprivation could amount to a mental impairment notwithstanding the absence of a formal psychiatric diagnosis. The Tribunal had also placed considerable weight on the employer’s failure to explore alternative roles outside Revenue Jersey.
The States Employment Board appealed to the Royal Court on questions of law, including alleged errors in the Tribunal’s approach to disability and proportionality.
The Royal Court upheld the appeal. It emphasised that the fact an employee has suffered prolonged work-related stress, or has been absent from work for more than six months, does not by itself establish a mental impairment for the purposes of the Discrimination Law.
There must be evidence supporting the existence of the impairment itself.
The statutory definition of disability in Jersey requires a person to have one or more long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments, which can adversely affect their ability to engage or participate in an activity protected by the Discrimination Law.
The Royal Court accepted the distinction between:
In particular, the Court noted that a reaction to workplace circumstances can become prolonged or entrenched without necessarily amounting to a mental impairment. A lengthy period of sickness absence is therefore not conclusive evidence of disability.
This is an important qualification to the first instance decision.
The Court confirmed that the burden of establishing disability rests with the claimant, on the balance of probabilities.
This is significant in cases involving disputed mental impairment. The question is not simply whether an employee has reported symptoms such as stress, anxiety, poor sleep or low mood. The evidence must establish where the issue is disputed, that those symptoms arise from an underlying mental impairment meeting the statutory test.
The Court referred to the difficulties which can arise in establishing mental impairment and the importance of appropriate medical evidence.
This was central to the Court’s decision. The Tribunal relied upon several GP letters referring to symptoms including anxiety, panic attacks, low mood and sleep difficulties. However, an Occupational Health assessment conducted in January 2024 had concluded that Ms Murphy showed no signs of a specific mental illness and that her difficulties appeared to be directly related to work-related stress.
The Court considered the Occupational Health evidence to be particularly important because it was directed to the issue in dispute and followed a specific assessment. The Court found that the Tribunal had not adequately explained why it rejected that evidence. The Court stated that where expert evidence does not support a finding of mental impairment, and there is no clear contrary evidence, the Tribunal must explain sufficiently why that evidence is being disregarded.
The Court ultimately concluded that the Tribunal’s reasoning from the reported symptoms and behaviours to the existence of a mental impairment was unclear and flawed.
This judgment should not be read as establishing a requirement for a formal psychiatric diagnosis in every disability case. That would go further than the judgment. Rather, the important distinction is between absence of a formal diagnosis and absence of evidence of a mental impairment. A claimant may potentially establish disability without a formal diagnosis. However, where the existence of a mental impairment is disputed, there needs to be sufficiently cogent evidence from which the Tribunal can properly conclude that an impairment exists.
For employers, this means that Occupational Health referrals and reports can be particularly important where an employee asserts that work-related stress constitutes a disability. For employees, it means that reliance solely upon certificates of sickness absence or descriptions of stress symptoms may be insufficient where disability is contested.
The Court also overturned the Tribunal’s conclusion that the dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Tribunal had accepted that the employer had legitimate aims, including managing the employee’s prolonged absence and the impact of the vacancy on a small team. The Tribunal also accepted that the employer had made reasonable attempts to address the underlying workplace issues. The Tribunal nevertheless concluded that the employer should have explored whether Ms Murphy could undertake a role elsewhere within the States before dismissing her. The Court considered that conclusion irrational in light of the Tribunal’s own findings.
The Tribunal had found, amongst other things that:
Against that background, the Court found it difficult to understand how the Tribunal could properly conclude that the dismissal was not proportionate.
The judgment provides useful reassurance to employers, but it should not be interpreted as giving employers a free hand to dismiss employees suffering from work-related stress.
The principal lessons are as follows:
Employers should avoid both extremes. It is unsafe to assume that an employee suffering from stress automatically has a disability. Equally, an employer should not assume that work-related stress can never amount to a disability merely because it is caused by workplace circumstances.
Where disability is potentially relevant, employers should obtain appropriate medical or Occupational Health advice addressing the actual questions that arise. In particular employers should consider asking whether:
The quality and purpose of the evidence will also matter. An Occupational Health report which expressly addresses the relevant questions may be considerably more useful than a collection of sickness certificates which merely record ‘stress’ or similar symptoms.
Where a dismissal may amount to discrimination arising from disability, the employer will need to consider whether the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That evidence should be documented. The employer should be able to demonstrate:
This is particularly important where the employee has a potentially relevant disability.
The Tribunal’s original decision raised a potentially significant concern for large employers, namely whether an employer might be expected to conduct a wide ranging search of its organisation for alternative employment before dismissing an employee whose absence arises from disability.
The Court’s decision provides some qualification to that concern. It did not however establish a general rule that redeployment outside an employee’s immediate department can always be disregarded.
Rather, it found that the Tribunal’s particular conclusion was irrational in the circumstances of this case, given its other findings about the employer’s conduct and the employee’s engagement with the process.
Employers should therefore continue to consider potentially suitable alternative roles where disability is engaged, particularly where their own policies contemplate redeployment.
One practical lesson is particularly important. The Tribunal’s original decision was critical of the fact that the individual who made the dismissal decision did not give evidence explaining their reasoning. Employers should therefore ensure that the decision-maker’s reasoning is properly recorded at the time of the decision. Minutes, decision records and dismissal letters should accurately explain:
A contemporaneous and accurate decision record will be valuable if the decision is subsequently challenged.
The decision also provides important guidance for employees pursuing disability discrimination claims. An employee who considers that stress, anxiety, or another mental health condition constitutes a disability should not assume that prolonged absence will establish that point automatically. Where disability is likely to be disputed, the employee should consider obtaining appropriate medical evidence addressing the nature and duration of the condition and its impact.
The judgment also reinforces the importance of engaging constructively with an employer’s absence management and redeployment processes.
An employee who refuses reasonable alternatives, or declines to engage with potential adjustments or redeployment may materially weaken their position, even where they establish that they have a disability.
The most significant aspect of this decision is the Court’s insistence upon maintaining a proper distinction between symptoms, circumstances and impairment. The Tribunal had recognised that stress does not automatically amount to a mental impairment. However, the Court considered its reasoning did not properly demonstrate how the evidential threshold had been met in this particular case. The decision therefore provides a useful corrective to any suggestion that a period of more than six months’ stress-related absence will, by itself, establish disability.
At the same time, the judgment does not diminish the importance of disability discrimination protections for employees with genuine mental-health conditions.
The safest approach for employers remains to treat disability as a question requiring proper investigation rather than assumption.
The key practical message is therefore not that stress is never a disability, but that disability must be established by evidence and the employer’s decision must be capable of being justified on the evidence available at the time.
Workplace stress, long-term absence, and potential disability can raise difficult legal and practical questions for both employers and employees. Our Employment Law team can advise employers on managing absence, reasonable adjustments, redeployment and potential discrimination issues, while also supporting employees who have concerns about their treatment at work or their rights under Jersey employment and discrimination law.
If you need advice on your circumstances, get in touch with our team.
The Royal Court has overturned the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal’s (the Tribunal) decision in Murphy v States Employment Board providing important guidance on when work related stress may amount to a disability under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 (the Discrimination Law) and on the evidence required to establish a mental impairment.
The decision is particularly relevant to employers managing long-term sickness absence, capability processes, and potential disability discrimination claims.
Ms Murphy was employed by Revenue Jersey. She was dismissed on 28 February 2024 under the States of Jersey’s Managing Attendance Policy following a prolonged period of absence attributed to work-related stress.
She brough claims before the Tribunal for among other things:
The Tribunal found that Ms Murphy’s work-related stress amounted to a disability for the purposes of the Discrimination Law. It concluded that her dismissal amounted to unfavourable treatment arising from that disability and that the dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The dismissal was consequently automatically unfair under Article 70A of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 (the Employment Law). The Tribunal considered that stress, anxiety, panic attacks, low mood, and sleep deprivation could amount to a mental impairment notwithstanding the absence of a formal psychiatric diagnosis. The Tribunal had also placed considerable weight on the employer’s failure to explore alternative roles outside Revenue Jersey.
The States Employment Board appealed to the Royal Court on questions of law, including alleged errors in the Tribunal’s approach to disability and proportionality.
The Royal Court upheld the appeal. It emphasised that the fact an employee has suffered prolonged work-related stress, or has been absent from work for more than six months, does not by itself establish a mental impairment for the purposes of the Discrimination Law.
There must be evidence supporting the existence of the impairment itself.
The statutory definition of disability in Jersey requires a person to have one or more long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments, which can adversely affect their ability to engage or participate in an activity protected by the Discrimination Law.
The Royal Court accepted the distinction between:
In particular, the Court noted that a reaction to workplace circumstances can become prolonged or entrenched without necessarily amounting to a mental impairment. A lengthy period of sickness absence is therefore not conclusive evidence of disability.
This is an important qualification to the first instance decision.
The Court confirmed that the burden of establishing disability rests with the claimant, on the balance of probabilities.
This is significant in cases involving disputed mental impairment. The question is not simply whether an employee has reported symptoms such as stress, anxiety, poor sleep or low mood. The evidence must establish where the issue is disputed, that those symptoms arise from an underlying mental impairment meeting the statutory test.
The Court referred to the difficulties which can arise in establishing mental impairment and the importance of appropriate medical evidence.
This was central to the Court’s decision. The Tribunal relied upon several GP letters referring to symptoms including anxiety, panic attacks, low mood and sleep difficulties. However, an Occupational Health assessment conducted in January 2024 had concluded that Ms Murphy showed no signs of a specific mental illness and that her difficulties appeared to be directly related to work-related stress.
The Court considered the Occupational Health evidence to be particularly important because it was directed to the issue in dispute and followed a specific assessment. The Court found that the Tribunal had not adequately explained why it rejected that evidence. The Court stated that where expert evidence does not support a finding of mental impairment, and there is no clear contrary evidence, the Tribunal must explain sufficiently why that evidence is being disregarded.
The Court ultimately concluded that the Tribunal’s reasoning from the reported symptoms and behaviours to the existence of a mental impairment was unclear and flawed.
This judgment should not be read as establishing a requirement for a formal psychiatric diagnosis in every disability case. That would go further than the judgment. Rather, the important distinction is between absence of a formal diagnosis and absence of evidence of a mental impairment. A claimant may potentially establish disability without a formal diagnosis. However, where the existence of a mental impairment is disputed, there needs to be sufficiently cogent evidence from which the Tribunal can properly conclude that an impairment exists.
For employers, this means that Occupational Health referrals and reports can be particularly important where an employee asserts that work-related stress constitutes a disability. For employees, it means that reliance solely upon certificates of sickness absence or descriptions of stress symptoms may be insufficient where disability is contested.
The Court also overturned the Tribunal’s conclusion that the dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Tribunal had accepted that the employer had legitimate aims, including managing the employee’s prolonged absence and the impact of the vacancy on a small team. The Tribunal also accepted that the employer had made reasonable attempts to address the underlying workplace issues. The Tribunal nevertheless concluded that the employer should have explored whether Ms Murphy could undertake a role elsewhere within the States before dismissing her. The Court considered that conclusion irrational in light of the Tribunal’s own findings.
The Tribunal had found, amongst other things that:
Against that background, the Court found it difficult to understand how the Tribunal could properly conclude that the dismissal was not proportionate.
The judgment provides useful reassurance to employers, but it should not be interpreted as giving employers a free hand to dismiss employees suffering from work-related stress.
The principal lessons are as follows:
Employers should avoid both extremes. It is unsafe to assume that an employee suffering from stress automatically has a disability. Equally, an employer should not assume that work-related stress can never amount to a disability merely because it is caused by workplace circumstances.
Where disability is potentially relevant, employers should obtain appropriate medical or Occupational Health advice addressing the actual questions that arise. In particular employers should consider asking whether:
The quality and purpose of the evidence will also matter. An Occupational Health report which expressly addresses the relevant questions may be considerably more useful than a collection of sickness certificates which merely record ‘stress’ or similar symptoms.
Where a dismissal may amount to discrimination arising from disability, the employer will need to consider whether the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That evidence should be documented. The employer should be able to demonstrate:
This is particularly important where the employee has a potentially relevant disability.
The Tribunal’s original decision raised a potentially significant concern for large employers, namely whether an employer might be expected to conduct a wide ranging search of its organisation for alternative employment before dismissing an employee whose absence arises from disability.
The Court’s decision provides some qualification to that concern. It did not however establish a general rule that redeployment outside an employee’s immediate department can always be disregarded.
Rather, it found that the Tribunal’s particular conclusion was irrational in the circumstances of this case, given its other findings about the employer’s conduct and the employee’s engagement with the process.
Employers should therefore continue to consider potentially suitable alternative roles where disability is engaged, particularly where their own policies contemplate redeployment.
One practical lesson is particularly important. The Tribunal’s original decision was critical of the fact that the individual who made the dismissal decision did not give evidence explaining their reasoning. Employers should therefore ensure that the decision-maker’s reasoning is properly recorded at the time of the decision. Minutes, decision records and dismissal letters should accurately explain:
A contemporaneous and accurate decision record will be valuable if the decision is subsequently challenged.
The decision also provides important guidance for employees pursuing disability discrimination claims. An employee who considers that stress, anxiety, or another mental health condition constitutes a disability should not assume that prolonged absence will establish that point automatically. Where disability is likely to be disputed, the employee should consider obtaining appropriate medical evidence addressing the nature and duration of the condition and its impact.
The judgment also reinforces the importance of engaging constructively with an employer’s absence management and redeployment processes.
An employee who refuses reasonable alternatives, or declines to engage with potential adjustments or redeployment may materially weaken their position, even where they establish that they have a disability.
The most significant aspect of this decision is the Court’s insistence upon maintaining a proper distinction between symptoms, circumstances and impairment. The Tribunal had recognised that stress does not automatically amount to a mental impairment. However, the Court considered its reasoning did not properly demonstrate how the evidential threshold had been met in this particular case. The decision therefore provides a useful corrective to any suggestion that a period of more than six months’ stress-related absence will, by itself, establish disability.
At the same time, the judgment does not diminish the importance of disability discrimination protections for employees with genuine mental-health conditions.
The safest approach for employers remains to treat disability as a question requiring proper investigation rather than assumption.
The key practical message is therefore not that stress is never a disability, but that disability must be established by evidence and the employer’s decision must be capable of being justified on the evidence available at the time.
Workplace stress, long-term absence, and potential disability can raise difficult legal and practical questions for both employers and employees. Our Employment Law team can advise employers on managing absence, reasonable adjustments, redeployment and potential discrimination issues, while also supporting employees who have concerns about their treatment at work or their rights under Jersey employment and discrimination law.
If you need advice on your circumstances, get in touch with our team.