The case of Bradley v The Royal Mint Ltd is one that is likely to have quite a polarising effect, with some readers coming down on the side of the claimant but others having sympathy for the employer.
Background
The claimant was Director of HR at the Royal Mint. During her employment she had twice previously tried to resign. Both times she had clearly been upset and the employer had refused to accept the resignation. The employer knew that the claimant suffered from depression and anxiety. Then, in June 2024, the claimant tendered her resignation again. She had by that time also been diagnosed with ADHD, which her employer was also aware of. However, unlike the previous resignation attempts, the claimant appeared to be calm. She explained that she was resigning to pursue higher paid work. On this occasion her manager believed she had thought through the decision to resign and accepted it. A week later the claimant told some colleagues she had resigned, approved a departure announcement that was then sent out, and the following week confirmed her resignation in writing.
A week later she texted her manager asking for help and, during a subsequent meeting, asked to withdraw the resignation. The claimant wrote to the Board referring to her resignation as "impulsive" alleging that the lack of support and reasonable adjustments since informing the business of her ADHD had caused her considerable stress, anxiety and deep depression. She said the decision to resign was made when she was "extremely ill" while seeking support to find the right combination of medicine (this included ADHD medication, anti-depressants and HRT). She also referred to having managed and masked her illness for the duration of her 13 years of employment. The employer did not accept this alternative reason for the resignation, deciding that the real reason was her desire to earn more money as she had previously suggested.
Tribunal claim
The claimant brought a number of disability related claims to the employment tribunal, of which only the claim for discrimination arising from her disability was successful. In reaching their conclusion the tribunal found, based on medical evidence, that the claimant's mental health was significantly impacted by the changes being made to her medication at the time she resigned. There was therefore a link between her disability and the resignation.
It was not disputed that the refusal to allow the claimant to rescind her resignation was unfavourable treatment that had a significant and detrimental impact on her - she lost her job. In their judgment, the tribunal accepted that at the time of the resignation the respondent reasonably believed the claimant was in a stable state of mind and that she had resigned for the reasons she gave at that time (to seek higher paid employment). It was accepted that the claimant presented as stable while at work, it being noted that she had lied to her psychiatrist about how she was feeling around that time, and it was therefore wholly plausible she was masking her symptoms to her colleagues. However, the employer should have taken additional steps to investigate the claimant's later assertions that the decision to resign had been impacted by her health. Instead, they relied on their own observations when they were not qualified to make that judgement. The employer should have obtained proper medical advice about the impact the claimant's disability had on her decision making.
What can employers take from this?
Dealing with the impact of disabilities, and how to appropriately act and react as employers can be a complicated business. Unless given in the heat of the moment, employers are usually entitled to accept, at face value, resignations that appear to be clear and unambiguous. This case demonstrates that where disability may impair decision making, further investigation may also be required if an employee subsequently attempts to withdraw their resignation.
