The case of Mrs S. Bradley v. The Royal Mint Ltd offers guidance for employers when faced with impulsive resignations made during moments of emotional distress (known as “heat of the moment” resignations). The case specifically considers resignations by employees with mental health conditions that amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010, which the employee later seeks to rescind. Employers must consider whether there is any suggestion that the employee’s resignation could be attributable to their disabilities, even if the employer has a legitimate aim for not allowing the employee to rescind the resignation. For insight into the general principles relating to resignations in the “heat of the moment” by individuals without mental health conditions, please see our previous insight.
Case facts
Mrs Bradley had been employed by The Royal Mint Ltd (the Royal Mint) since January 2009. She was promoted to the role of Director of Human Resources in 2015, reporting to the CEO, Ms Jessop. Mrs Bradley had suffered from depression and anxiety since 2013 and was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in January 2022. Following changes in her medication in early 2022, Mrs Bradley suffered with emotional instability, impulsive behaviour and mood swings.
Mrs Bradley had previously handed in her resignation twice, but Ms Jessop had asked her to retract on both occasions, which she did. On 15 June 2022, Mrs Bradley verbally resigned to Ms Jessop citing financial motivations and dissatisfaction with her current role. On 27 June 2022, she confirmed her resignation in writing.
On 6 July 2022, Mrs Bradley asked to rescind her resignation, on the basis that it had been impulsive and driven by her mental health struggles and changes in medication. Ms Jessop refused to accept the withdrawal of the resignation due to the business disruption this would entail; the fact that the resignation had already been communicated to staff, trade unions and the HM Treasury; and concerns about the financial motivations for the resignation that Mrs Bradley had originally stated. Mrs Bradley continued to communicate her desire to rescind the resignation, but this was not accepted. On 13 September 2022, Mrs Bradley submitted a formal grievance claiming that the refusal to accept the rescindment was discrimination arising from her disability. This was investigated by an external law firm, but not upheld.
Following this, Mrs Bradley brought claims for direct and indirect sex discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments to the Employment Tribunal.
Employment Tribunal decision
Mrs Bradley’s claim that the refusal to permit rescindment of her resignation was discrimination arising from a disability was found to be well founded. The other claims were either withdrawn or dismissed.
It was held that the Royal Mint’s refusal to allow Mrs Bradley to rescind her resignation was unfavourable treatment. Although this unfavourable treatment was found to be a means of achieving a legitimate aim (maintaining reasonable operational integrity and stability within the senior executives in the organisation), it was held that the refusal was not a proportionate means of achieving this aim.
The Tribunal agreed with Mrs Bradley’s submission that the Royal Mint should have taken steps to inform themselves of the impact of the claimant’s mental health and ADHD on her decision to resign, either through their own adviser’s assessment or Mrs Bradley’s own ADHD assessment. If they had done so, they would have been able to understand how her mental health condition might have impacted her decision to resign. Instead, it was found that the Royal Mint had “close[d] their minds to any suggestion that the claimant’s resignation was attributable to her disabilities”.
Key takeaways for employers
Employers must recognise the impact that mental health conditions, such as ADHD, anxiety and depression might have on a resignation, including the possibility that a “heat of the moment” resignation may have been influenced by such disabilities. Employers should proactively assess whether the resignation could be attributable to an employee’s mental health condition and whether it was really intended. Employers should ensure that managers and HR staff are trained to consider when mental health might be a factor contributing to an employee’s resignation. In some circumstances, it would be reasonable to offer employees a “cooling off period” for time to reflect and consider whether the resignation was impulsive.
If an employee seeks to rescind their resignation, referring to the influence of a mental health condition, employers are advised to seek medical advice from qualified professionals concerning the conditions and their impact on the employee’s behaviour. This should be used by employers to assess whether any refusal to allow an employee to rescind a resignation will surmount the hurdle of being a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The legitimate aims of the employer must be weighed against the discriminatory effect of the refusal and it must be determined whether the former outweighs the latter. It is not sufficient to simply claim business disruption or inconvenience to justify such a refusal, without any consideration of less discriminatory alternatives to not permitting an employee to rescind their resignation.
