A senior recruiter has been awarded almost £188,000 after being sacked over his health issues.
Darron Blewitt, a director at Leeds-based Mach Recruitment, was successful in his claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination after he was cast aside by his employer “in a perfunctory way”, said the judge at a tribunal in Cambridge.
On 7 February 2020 Mr Blewitt had a cardiac arrest which left him with a hypoxic brain injury. While he recovered his mobility and speech over the following weeks, his memory and cognitive skills had been adversely affected. He also experienced significant fatigue and anxiety, the tribunal heard.
He returned to work in October 2020, at which point workplaces and working practices had changed significantly as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic. On the Mr Blewitt’s own evidence, his impaired memory and other cognitive issues meant this was a particularly challenging transition for him.
Tribunal cases
Company director wins £15k after being told to ‘shut up’
Man who used company credit card for himself unfairly dismissed
On 29 September 2022, Mr Blewitt was dismissed. He did not receive payment for his notice period.
Mr Blewitt had worked as the southern regional operations director for Mach and had described himself as a “workaholic”.
Yet after his return to the company the tribunal heard he had been left “to his own devices” and expected to “get on with the job”.
Katie Barrett, the company’s head of HR, was accused of frequently cancelling meetings with Blewitt and also ignoring emails from occupational health regarding his treatment.
Eventually Barrett contacted Blewitt to say he would be “let go” after a decision to reduce headcount in the senior team, the tribunal was told. The tribunal heard that on 27 September 2022 Mr Blewitt was contacted by Ms Barrett who informed him that he would be dismissed following a decision to reduce headcount in the senior team.
This was attributed to a downturn in business, but “there was no suggestion that it was a tentative proposal in respect of which there would be a period of consultation,” found the judge.
When Mr Blewitt asked Ms Barrett whether this meant redundancy, the call was ended, with Ms Barrett telling the Claimant that she would call him back. They did not then speak again until 29 September 2022 when Ms Barrett set up a Teams call during which she told the Mr Blewitt that he was being dismissed with immediate effect by reason of ill-health.
In his ruling tribunal judge Roger Tynan said Mr Blewitt was dismissed because the company found his health issues time- consuming and difficult to manage and was unwilling to invest the necessary time and effort in that regard.
He added that the fact that the company never documented its concerns in writing, failed to document or minute any meetings or discussions with Mr Blewitt and did not even confirm his dismissal in writing, “pointed to an organisation that was entirely neglectful of its responsibilities in the matter”.
He said that Mr Blewitt appeared to be viewed as an inconvenience to the business and that “stereotypical assumptions were made regarding his ongoing ability to perform his role and contribute.”
Mach Recruitment did not attend or engage with the tribunal after the company’s initial response was rejected.
Legal opinion
Liz Stevens, professional support lawyer in the employment team at Birketts, warned that the case showed the damage that could be done to firms that failed to comply with equality law.
She said: “It is clear from the tribunal’s findings that the employer had failed to follow even the most basic procedural steps in this case. It had disregarded occupational health advice, failed to document its concerns in writing and kept no records of meetings with the claimant. Crucially, there had been no formal capability process or any warning given of the potential for dismissal. The tribunal was particularly critical of the respondent’s head of HR for these shortcomings.
“The claimant’s medical condition clearly met the definition of a disability under the Equality Act 2010, meaning that the employer was under a duty to make reasonable adjustments. The employer failed in this duty and, as the employment judge highlights in the decision, an employer’s failure to implement reasonable adjustments is a material factor in the fairness of any health-related dismissal.
“The employer’s case was further weakened by its failure to comply with tribunal orders, resulting in its response being struck out. It also failed to attend both the merits hearing and the remedy hearing, meaning that the tribunal had little choice but to accept the claimant’s evidence. Engaging properly with the tribunal process, even if a claim has a high prospect of success, is always advisable in order to minimise potential losses.”
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
