Claimant v The Royal Mint Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Withdrawn by the claimant on 21 May 2024 and dismissed on withdrawal by the tribunal.
Withdrawn by the claimant on 21 May 2024 and dismissed on withdrawal by the tribunal.
The tribunal found the reason for the refusal to rescind the resignation was concern over destabilisation to the business and later disbelief of the claimant's explanation, not because of her disabilities (ADHD, depression, anxiety). Previous occasions when the claimant was visibly unwell Ms Jessop had refused to accept resignations. The reason was not the claimant's disability.
The claim succeeded in relation to the refusal to permit rescindment of resignation. The tribunal found the resignation arose from the claimant's disability (impulsiveness, extreme reactions, medication changes). The respondent failed to show the refusal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — they did not obtain medical advice to properly inform themselves after being on notice of the link between the claimant's disability and her resignation on 27 July 2022. Other complaints of discrimination arising from disability failed.
The tribunal found none of the alleged PCPs were valid or that substantial disadvantage was established. The claimant had capacity and awareness to manage her own health and had engaged a private psychiatrist. Applying Tarbuck, a failure to refer to occupational health or to consult cannot itself be a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Facts
The claimant, a Director of HR at The Royal Mint, was diagnosed with ADHD in January 2022 and had a history of depression and anxiety. In June 2022, while undergoing medication changes for ADHD and HRT, she resigned citing financial reasons and a desire to pursue interim work in London. On 4 July 2022, she sought to rescind her resignation, explaining she had been unwell and her resignation was influenced by her mental health and medication changes. The CEO refused to accept the rescindment, believing it would destabilise the business and not accepting the claimant's explanation, as the claimant had previously given coherent reasons for resigning related to pay and career.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments claims. However, it upheld the claim for discrimination arising from disability regarding the refusal to rescind the resignation. The tribunal found the respondent failed to act proportionately by not seeking medical advice after being informed of the link between the claimant's disability and her resignation, instead relying on their own observations and disbelief. Remedy is to be determined at a separate hearing.
Practical note
Employers must take proactive steps to obtain informed medical advice when an employee attributes conduct (such as resignation) to disability, particularly where prior medical evidence supports impulsiveness and medication-related effects, rather than relying on lay observations and disbelief of the employee's account.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1601525/2022
- Decision date
- 16 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 11
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Director of HR
- Salary band
- £100,000+
- Service
- 14 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister