Private Counselling A Reasonable Adjustment For Employee Suffering From Work-Related Stress

In Croft Vets Ltd and Ors v Butcher an employer breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 by not paying for an employee who was suffering from work-related stress and depression to have private counselling.

In Croft Vets Ltd and Ors v Butcher an employer breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 by not paying for an employee who was suffering from work-related stress and depression to have private counselling.

Mrs Butcher was employed as a finance and reception manager at Crofts Vets – an extremely demanding role. Finding it increasingly difficult to cope, Mrs Butcher went off sick and was subsequently diagnosed with long-term work-related stress and “classical depression” (conditions which constituted a “disability” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010).

Crofts Vets referred Mrs Butcher to a clinical psychiatrist, who made the recommendation that she attend psychiatric sessions and counselling.

In November 2010, Mrs Butcher resigned from her employment when her employers failed to act on the recommendations made by the clinical psychiatrist.  Further, she claimed that her intolerable workload had caused her stress and depression.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) held that Croft Vets had failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments. The purpose of a reasonable adjustment is to avoid any disadvantage that a disabled employee suffers (when compared with a non-disabled employee) as a result of any provision, criteria or practice (PCP) applied by the employer. In this case, the PCP was simply for Mrs Butcher to attend work and perform her role. However, due to her mental impairment, Mrs Butcher was unable meet this PCP and was placed at a disadvantage when compared with other employees not suffering from depression.

The EAT held that funding private counselling fell within the definition of a reasonable adjustment. The purpose of the adjustment was to enable Mrs Butcher to return to work and deal with the demands of her role. Further, the adjustment was “job-related” as medical evidence had suggested that Mrs Butcher was suffering from predominantly work-related stress. It was emphasised that the issue in the case was not that of the payment for private medical treatment in general, but, rather, payment for a specific form of support to enable Mrs Butcher to return to work.

The case reminds employers of the importance of carefully considering the recommendations of medical practitioners in making reasonable adjustments to support a disabled employee at work, or in a return to work.

Whilst paying for an employee’s private medical treatment does seem an onerous burden, employers should be reminded that, when making reasonable adjustments, what is “reasonable” will of course depend on the size and resources of the employer. Paying for an employee’s private medical treatment may well assist an employee in returning and coping at work, however an employer will only be expected to fund what is “reasonable” in the circumstances.