Third time was not the charm: The Royal Mint vs. Sarah Bradley

Mrs Bradley had worked for the Royal Mint since January 2009. She was promoted until she became Director of HR, reporting directly to the CEO. Mrs Bradley had suffered from depression and anxiety since 2013 and received a diagnosis of ADHD in 2022.

In 2019 and 2021, Mrs Bradley attempted to end her employment, but each time the CEO refused to accept her resignation on the basis it was clear Mrs Bradley was taking those decisions whilst unwell.  The issues leading to both resignations were resolved.

After Mrs Bradley had been diagnosed with ADHD in 2022, she openly discussed it with colleagues.  Medication was prescribed for ADHD but at this time she stopped taking antidepressants.  She had a clash with the executive team and became upset.  The CEO discussed the issues and things calmed down.  Mrs Bradley presented at work as “normal” with no further meltdowns or conversations about mental health.

About four weeks later, Mrs Bradley resigned.  The CEO, mindful of previous resignations, asked if she was ok.  The CEO took the view that Mrs Bradley was not visibly upset or showing any emotion which might give concern.  They discussed the reasons for her resignation which included money, taking more lucrative interim roles in London, the fact that her husband was due to retire soon and she felt her job had become stale and repetitive.  The CEO accepted the resignation later explaining that in her view, contextually, the resignation had been markedly different to the first two resignations.

Following the meeting, Mrs Bradley continued to work, spoke about her reasons for leaving with her colleagues, agreed the announcement about her leaving and became involved in recruiting her replacement.

However, three weeks after resigning, Mrs Bradley tried to rescind her resignation explaining to the CEO that she had not been herself at the time.  The CEO refused her request.

Mrs Bradley made various claims in the Employment Tribunal, but they were all either withdrawn or dismissed.  She only succeeded with her complaint for discrimination arising from disability.  The Tribunal decided that she had suffered unfavourable treatment, arising from disability, by the employer failing to allow the resignation to be rescinded.

The Tribunal accepted that the employer had a legitimate aim in refusing the recission, which was described as maintaining reasonable operational integrity and expediency and maintaining stability within the small number of senior executives in the business.  However, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the employer had considered less discriminatory alternatives and implemented a proportionate means of achieving their aims.  The Tribunal went on to set out that based on medical evidence, it thought that Mrs Bradley resigned due to her mental health and ADHD.  The employer failed to take any medical advice at the time instead preferring to rely on the CEO’s observations.

It is important to note that the Tribunal have not gone so far as to suggest that the outcome would have been any different had the Royal Mint sought medical advice as to Mrs Bradley’s capacity for decision-making when considering whether to accept her rescission or not. The point simply is that they failed to take these steps altogether despite being sufficiently aware of Mrs Bradley’s disability.

Whilst this Employment Tribunal decision is not binding on other tribunals and is very fact sensitive, it does remind employers of the need to be vigilant and to understand when employees might be deemed disabled and protected, and that they should defer to medical professionals for support and advice.

Mrs S Bradley v The Royal Mint Ltd: 1601525/2022 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)