The recent case of Forrester-Hayes v Scania GB Ltd has shed light on how employment tribunals assess dismissals where the dismissed employee had ADHD.
In this case, Mr Forrester-Hayes (F-H) was employed as an apprentice in a garage. After suspecting colleagues had “tampered with his lunch”, he sent abusive messages and threatened violence and damage to their property to the suspected parties. Pranks were a common occurrence and F-H was already under a final warning after an excessive reaction to one previous incident. He was suspended pending an investigation. He raised ADHD, and after obtaining an occupational health (OH) report, he was invited to attend a disciplinary meeting.
Although the OH Report asked the employer to consider whether F-H had interpersonal communication deficits which either contributed to his conduct or as a mitigating factor, it confirmed that the condition did not impair his ability to differentiate between what was right or wrong. The manager took into account F-H’s ADHD and the content of the report, but decided to dismiss him on the grounds of repeated threats, which amounted to gross misconduct. ADHD was not considered a sufficient or serious mitigating factor. F-H took his claim to the Employment Tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
F-H argued that his impulsive and instinctive behaviour was caused by ADHD. The tribunal judge accepted that he had ADHD and it could have contributed to him sending abusive and threatening messages, but it was not an inevitable consequence of him having ADHD. Furthermore, the link between his condition and him sending such messages did not mean he was excused from responsibility for his actions. They also noted that the messages were sent over a 10-15min period – weakening his argument that the messages were impulsive and heat-of-the moment reactions.
As a result, the Tribunal found that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and so the dismissal was fair. They felt the dismissal was a reasonable and proportionate response of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting staff from abusive and threatening behaviour at work.
This case highlights that not all medical conditions are legally classified as disabilities, nor do they automatically impair a person’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities or distinguish between right and wrong. Obtaining medical and occupational health advice is crucial to understanding whether the employee’s conduct was caused by, or at least contributed to, their condition. However, the existence of a medical condition that could have contributed to misconduct does not prevent a dismissal from being fair.
This article is intended for guidance purposes only. Employers are advised to contact the HR Helpline for advice. We offer initial guidance over the phone, and can also provide a bespoke HR support service for all your drafting needs.
