The latest statistics show that 1 in 10 adults in the UK are currently experiencing symptoms of severe mental illness, which may relate to anxiety disorders, depression, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), eating disorders and schizophrenia.
The tribunal in Muir V Astra Zeneca UK Ltd 2024 assessed how employers should navigate behaviour exhibited by employees with poor mental health.
Background
Dr Muir began his employment with Astra Zeneca UK Ltd on 5 January 1988 and was a leading scientist in the firm's development of a drug to treat some forms of breast cancer. He was dismissed in December 2020 without notice after a disciplinary process considered a number of allegations from colleagues of "repeated inappropriate conduct" which was found to "amount to bullying and harassment."
However, on 8 January 2024, Employment Judge Johnson ruled at the Manchester Employment Tribunal that Dr Muir had successfully established a case of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and disability discrimination due to his severe anxiety and depression constituting a disability.
The facts
Dr Muir had experienced severe depression and anxiety, which was documented in his medical records from 2014 and also by accessing the AXA PPP Healthcare service provided to him in 2018.
Between 1-15 November 2018, Dr Muir was absent from work due to anxiety, and his consultant psychiatrist, Dr Gowrisunkar, noted in her report, "Dr Muir had a traumatic month in the context of a flare-up at work which was very stressful… he felt that he could not carry on and was very distressed".
Dr Muir was appointed the head of a project in 2020 and experienced increased stress as he felt various colleagues were not pulling their weight as the project approached its deadline.
On 15 July 2020, Dr Muir's Team Manager, Mr Powell, sent an email to Dr Muir's line manager, David Klauber, stating, "having some issues with Dr Muir atm …[b]ehaviours issues again and his mental health – bit worrying".
Mr Powell sent a further email that day stating, "He's been 'good' overall this past 18 months, he's shown flashes of alternating into `Mr Hyde' mode now and again but recently he's been mainly in Hyde mode". For the avoidance of doubt, references to 'Hyde' relate to the story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde where Jekyll reflects good personality traits and Hyde relates to the negative.
The investigation
On 17 July 2020, a senior manager notified HR of "potential bullying and harassment in the workplace" by Dr Muir.This led to HR appointing an external investigator to investigate the allegations.
On 20 July 2020, the investigator alerted HR that three other employees had made informal complaints against Dr Muir for poorly worded emails, raised voice and difficulty working together. The investigator asked HR if they should alert Dr Muir of the investigation, to which HR responded no, as this would stress Dr Muir unnecessarily.
The decision not to inform Dr Muir about the investigation led him to attend a further work meeting with his disgruntled colleagues on 30 July 2020. This meeting was reported to be "extremely difficult" and "took a similar form to the earlier meetings which gave rise to the investigation'.
In addition, rather than investigating the allegations under the company's Employee Concerns Policy (focused on problem-solving), the investigator assessed the allegations under the Employee Improvement policy, which focuses on disciplinary action. The tribunal was critical of this approach and held that the investigator should have considered if an informal approach could have resolved the matter, especially as the employees did not raise formal complaints.
Disciplinary hearing
On 22 October 2020, a disciplinary hearing took place chaired by Mr Bromilow, the Senior Director for Product Development. Mr Bromilow concluded that Dr Muir's behaviour towards his colleagues met the definition of bullying and harassment and amounted to gross misconduct. However, there was no evidence that Dr Muir's mental illness was considered when reaching this conclusion.
On 18 December 2020, Dr Muir was dismissed by letter for gross misconduct without notice.
The appeal
On 8 January 2021, Dr Muir submitted a written appeal stating that his long history of mental illness had not been considered, nor had he received adequate support at work. Despite the appeal manager having access to Dr Muir's medical evidence provided by Dr Gowrisunkar, the allegations were nonetheless upheld, and Dr Muir's appeal was rejected.
Dr Muir thus brought claims for disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal to the Employment Tribunal.
The decision of the Employment Tribunal
Dr Muir succeeded in all three claims.
Discrimination arising from disability
The tribunal held that there was no question of whether Dr Muir's mental illness amounted to a disability under s.6 of the Equality Act 2010. Indeed, although it was accepted that Dr Muir was 'overly forceful' in the manner he expressed himself, this was beyond his control and was as a result of his disability.
Astra Zeneca UK Ltd tried to argue that they were not made aware of Dr Muir's disability. However, it was held that the company ought to have known about Dr Muir's mental health issues based on all of the evidence it had available at every step of the investigation.
The tribunal then needed to assess whether dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. In this scenario, the legitimate aim was to have a safe environment where employees followed an acceptable standard of behaviour. The tribunal concluded that Dr Muir's dismissal could not objectively be justified as a proportionate response as Astra Zeneca UK Ltd:
- Failed to intervene at a much earlier stage, including referring Dr Muir to occupational health;
- Ignored Dr Muir's request for help and support;
- Allowed for the meeting on 30 July 2020 to go ahead;
- Should not have taken disciplinary action against him.
Unfair dismissal
The tribunal held that Astra Zeneca UK Ltd was wrong to conclude that Dr Muir's behaviour amounted to gross misconduct. Indeed, it was stated that the company failed to investigate all aspects of the case properly, and in particular, the impact Dr Muir's mental illness had on his behaviour.
Although it was reasonable for the company to take some action against Dr Muir, it was outside the range of reasonable responses to dismiss him for gross misconduct, given his history of mental illness, which the company was aware of.
Furthermore, it was discussed that during the appeal process, the appeal manager had conferred with the initial investigator at the first disciplinary hearing. The tribunal was critical of this approach and stated that it 'gave a clear impression that impartiality was being compromised'. As a result, the tribunal held that Astra Zeneca UK Ltd committed an unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS code of conduct, and therefore, a 10% uplift was applied to the compensation award received by Dr Muir.
Wrongful dismissal
The tribunal held that Dr Muir was wrongfully dismissed as his conduct was not sufficiently serious to amount to a repudiatory breach, nor should he have been dismissed without notice.
Lessons for employers
Muir v Astra Zeneca UK Ltd highlights an important lesson to employers: they must acknowledge and address their employees' mental health, especially when considering their conduct in the workplace. Furthermore, employers must note that not being explicitly informed of a disability is not a defence to a discrimination claim.
Therefore, employers must train their staff, particularly their managers, to look out for signs of mental health distress within their teams. Indeed, employers should look out for:
- Physical symptoms which may include increased fatigue, lack of enthusiasm, bodily shakes, episodes of crying and distress, and significant weight changes.
- Psychological symptoms which may include changes to concentration levels, a decrease in memory and retention of knowledge, and low self-esteem and mood.
- Behavioural symptoms which may include underperformance at work, significant changes to the consumption of alcohol, irritability and aggression, unusual lack of camaraderie, and a general withdrawal from social activities.
This case does not set the precedent that disciplinary action cannot be taken when an employee's behaviour is affected by their mental health, but rather, it reemphasises the need for employers to provide consistent and adequate help and support to their employees before reaching that point – early intervention is therefore key.
This support can take many forms, such as occupational health referrals, assistance from mental health first aiders, extra supervision, reallocating duties to other workers and allowing for flexibility and more frequent breaks.
