How our filters work:

Our team sorts through all blog submissions to place them in the categories they fit the most - meaning it's never been simpler to gain advice and new knowledge for topics most important for you. This is why we have created this straight-forward guide to help you navigate our system.

Phase 1: Pick your School Phase

Phase 2: Select all topic areas of choice

Search and Browse

And there you have it! Now your collection of blogs are catered to your chosen topics and are ready for you to explore. Plus, if you frequently return to the same categories you can bookmark your current URL and we will save your choices on return. Happy Reading!

New to our blogs? Click Here >

Filter Blog

School Phase

School Management Solutions

Curriculum Solutions

Classroom Solutions

Extra-Curricular Solutions

IT Solutions

Close X

Lamb v Garrard Academy

When do mental health disabilities become an employer’s responsibility?

This question was considered by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) in the case of Lamb v The Garrard Academy. Lamb was an employee at the Garrard Academy, however she suffered from depression following alleged bullying at work and was off sick from 29th February 2012. Shortly afterwards she raised a grievance over two separate incidents relating to the Deputy Headteacher.

The school’s Head of HR undertook an investigation and their report upheld the grievance but was deemed to be an inadequate investigation by the Chief Executive. They did not then take account of the supporting documents.

On the 18th July 2012 Lamb met with the Chief Executive and Lamb confirmed that she was suffering from PTSD linked to childhood experiences. The Chief Executive said she would deal with the outstanding grievance but a month later wrote to Lamb to state that this was no longer the case.

On the 21st November 2012, the Occupational Health specialist suggested that Lamb’s depression had begun in September 2011. They also suggested that if the grievance issues were fully resolved that Lamb could recover fully.

A fresh investigation into the grievance was carried out, however following this, the grievance was rejected in January 2013.

Lamb subsequently brought a claim of disability discrimination including a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was triggered on the 18th July 2012 not the 21st November 2012. They found that from the meeting with the Chief Executive, the Academy knew of Lamb’s PTSD and that it was a long term problem going back to her experiences as a child. The date which an employer should be aware that an employee is disabled is important, as this triggers their duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The EAT also found that some of the proposed adjustments sought were reasonable.

There are a number of things that an Employer can learn from this.

An employer cannot rely on poor management practice to argue that it wasn’t aware of an employee’s disability and therefore that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not triggered. In this case the EAT looked at when the Academy should realistically have known about Lamb’s disability. The EAT commented that had an Occupational Health referral been made in July 2012 ‘the overwhelming likelihood’ is that they would have concluded the impairment could well last until September 2012, which would have been 12 months since the beginning of the symptoms. Therefore when dealing with a sick employee, employers should make reasonable enquiries to find out whether an employee may be covered under the Equality Act 2010 for disability.

Additionally, employers should look to investigate and resolve grievances as quickly as possible. As was the case here, not resolving a grievance over an extended period of time can result in further problems. If the original grievance report had not been set aside or if whatever flaws it contained had been remedied by further investigation, shortly after discovery by the Chief Executive, it is conceivable that far fewer issues would have resulted.

For further information visit:

Leave a Reply

The author

SAS Daniels’ Education team delivers robust practical advice, training and onsite support on HR and employment law related matters for schools, colleges and academies. Stephen Foster, Partner and Head of the Education Sector at SAS Daniels, has over 20 years’ experience in employment law, HR support and Employment Tribunal advocacy and together with his team of dedicated HR Consultants they provide both ad-hoc support and a fixed price service, supporting and advising Headteachers and other members of an SLT, governing bodies and Business Managers. SAS Daniels’ specialist education sector knowledge enables the team to provide swift, pragmatic advice and on-site support on all HR and legal issues for teachers and support staff. Whether you are faced with everyday issues such as performance and absence management or more complicated matters, such as academisation, restructures, threatened strike action or Tribunal claims, SAS Daniels can be there by your side, helping to achieve the outcome you want. By taking specialist advice, you can rest assured that any HR matters are resolved swiftly and effectively, freeing up your time to concentrate on the most important thing, the children.

Subscribe to the monthly bloggers digest

Cookies and Privacy
Like many sites this site uses cookies. Privacy Policy » OK