Stressed Out

When an employee becomes too ill to work because of stress, not only is it very unpleasant for the employee concerned, it can often leave employers exposed to a claim that the employee’s work made him or her ill.

A recent case is a classic illustration of what can happen.

Ms V started working for Fairstead House School in 1977 as a teacher for the School’s reception class.  In 1997, 20 years later, an inspection of the School was critical of some of her teaching methods.  As a result Ms V was asked to work closely with another member of staff in order to prepare the reception class for its next inspection later the same year.  Ms V was unhappy with this arrangement.  V’s GP signed her off work with depression. Because of her illness she was off work for 8 months.  On the advice of a psychiatrist she returned to work in June 1998.  The School was concerned that resuming work might be stressful for V and arranged for weekly support meetings to take place with V and another member of staff.  By late September she was showing signs of not coping well and in October suffered a relapse and did not return to work for the School again.

V brought claims in the High Court that due to the School’s negligence she had suffered two periods of severe clinical depression.  She said the first was caused by changes to her job following the inspection of the School and the second caused by the failure to provide her with sufficient support when she returned to work.

The Judge rejected both claims.  The first because the School could not have foreseen that by changing her duties following the inspection she would have become ill.  There was no reason to believe she would become ill so the School were not liable.  In relation to the second period of illness, this was foreseeable.  There was an obvious risk of it happening and in fact the School had recognised the risk.  Having recognised it the School had given her reasonable support.  In providing this support the School had complied with its duty of care to V.  Having provided reasonable support the School was not liable for her breakdown that arose because of her failure to cope with being asked to teach in a different way.

V appealed to the Court of Appeal saying that the judge had been wrong to say that the School had provided reasonable support.  V also claimed that when the School could see she was not coping, it should have sent her home.

The Court of Appeal found against V.  The evidence was that the School had put in place mechanisms to help V;  it had allowed her back initially on a part-time basis and that support meetings had been held.  In the Court of Appeal’s words it was “difficult to see what more the School could have done by way of support”.  The Court of Appeal also said that, had the School sent her home, this would have been seen by her as a hostile act indicating a lack of confidence in her.

You have to feel a bit sorry for V.  Not only has she become too ill to work because of depression on two occasions, but she has had to endure going to court twice and losing on both occasions but the School in this case did nothing wrong.

The lessons for employers are to make sure that you respond positively to employees who are showing signs of stress at work.  Do not ignore the warning signs particularly if the employee has been off even for short periods with stress.  Taking action to help employees early on may be inconvenient at the time but will benefit both the employee and you in the long run.

An employee who is finding his or her job too demanding or difficult on an ongoing basis should tell his or her employer clearly and in writing if necessary.  Whilst most of us need an income, allowing our pride to get in the way of our peace of mind and our health is always a mistake.

Published 27/09/2006.