You have serious misconduct allegations. The employee in question is signed off with stress and depression. What now? Do you push on, pause, or tweak the process?
The recent High Court decision in Woodhead v WTTV Ltd is a cautionary tale for HR. While unusual (it was a personal injury claim, not a Tribunal case), it provides cautionary lessons for managing disciplinaries where psychiatric harm is a live risk.
What happened?
Mr Woodhead, Managing Director of a television company, was told he was being made redundant. Days later, he was called into a surprise ‘fact-finding’ meeting about sexual harassment allegations dating back two years. He was not given the complaint in writing. The meeting was long, intense and, according to him, left him ‘reeling’.
He was suspended and, crucially, already had a long history of serious mental illness. Within a week, his health collapsed. He was signed off with depression, diagnosed with adjustment disorder, and admitted to hospital. The employer pressed on. It edited an investigation report to hide that some allegations would not be pursued. It continued to push for a disciplinary response during his sick leave. It insisted on an Occupational Health (OH) referral during lockdown, even though his doctors were already saying he was unfit.
What did the court decide and why?
The court accepted that, from 4th December 2019, the employer was on notice of a real risk to the employee’s health if the process continued unchanged.
Of four key failings, three were held to breach the employer’s duty of care. Only one caused harm: the decision to withhold that parts of the complaint had been dropped. That left the employee feeling unheard and overwhelmed. Expert evidence confirmed it materially worsened his psychiatric injury. On that point, the employer was liable in negligence.
The other two breaches (pressing ahead while he was off sick and insisting on OH) were slammed but did not cause injury.
What should you do?
Do not play tricks
If you drop parts of a complaint, say so. Misleading someone about the scope of a disciplinary process is not only poor practice, it might also get you sued.
Fair process still matters even for the accused
Yes, you must take allegations seriously. But you owe a duty of care to the person being investigated too. Reasonable adjustments are not just for complainants.
Watch the urgency reflex
There is not always a need to push ahead when someone is on sick leave with mental health issues. Assess whether the process can be delayed or adapted without compromising fairness.
OH is not a box to tick
If the employee’s treating clinician is providing clear evidence, respect that. A lockdown video call with OH will not win the day.
This case is a reminder: get your process wrong, and you are not just looking at unfair dismissal or discrimination claims. You might also face a claim in negligence. Handle with care.
