Ms Lynskey began working for Direct Line in 2016 and during this time had received good performance ratings. In 2019, a new system was introduced, around this time Ms Lynskey begun suffering with menopausal symptoms which affected her concentration and performance at work. She made her employers aware of the symptoms she was suffering from and she received support and coaching as a result.
In June 2020, her manager raised concerns about a telephone call she had with a customer. She was signed off work for two weeks with work-related stress. During this period of absence Ms Lynskey was offered a new role which would be less stressful and did not involve selling directly.
Ms Lynskey accepted this new role. Whilst she was praised for her interaction with customers, her linemanager was concerned about her efficiency within the role.
Ms Lynskey subsequently received two customer complaints, stating she was abrupt and rude. Ms Lynskey was informed this must not happen again and could warrant disciplinary action. No action was taken at this stage and further support via training and coaching was provided.
At her end of year review, she was rated “requires improvement” as she required a high level of support and still struggled with aspects of the job. As a result, she was placed on a refresher training course and she continued to receive coaching for the role.
By April 2021, her line manager started to formally performance manage her. She explained that the problems with her performance were due to her menopausal symptoms, despite raising this, her manager was unsympathetic and imposed a first stage warning with a “success plan”.
Ms Lynskey was then signed off work with stress. In August, she was referred to OH and the report recommended that a phased return to work be completed, with additional training and suggested her targets be removed until her menopausal symptoms improved.
Her employer, despite receiving the OH report, decided to stop paying her company sick pay because they did not believe she was doing enough in order to return to work. In May 2023, Ms Lynskey resigned from her role and brought a claim against Direct Line for:
- Constructive Dismissal
- Sex
- Age
- Disability Discrimination; and
Decision
The Tribunal accepted that Direct Line had treated Ms Lynskey unfavourably given the circumstances:
- Failed to treat her favourably when giving Ms Lynskey her performance rating, they had failed to consider her menopausal symptoms and the limitations which came with them.
- Putting her through and giving her a disciplinary warning was unfavourable treatment, due to the fact that the manager had failed to consider any underlying issues and despite being aware of them, disregarded them.
- Stopped paying her sick pay, when there was no evidence to support their view that she was not doing enough to return to work.
- Whilst training and coaching was provided, they failed to consider reasonable adjustments as recommended by Occupational Health.
The Tribunal also accepted that whilst the incidents that had taken place amounted to a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence, Ms Lynskey had waited 8 months to resign and so had affirmed the contract.
The Tribunal disagreed and found that comments made about Ms Lynskey’s confidence in the role, related to her new role and did not amount to sex and/or age discrimination.
Ms Lynskey as a result was awarded a total of £64,645 in compensation.
The Takeaway
Ms Lynskey had made Direct Line aware of the difficulties she was suffering from the outset and whilst sympathetic at first, they failed to continue with the support, the relationship started to strain when her line manager had seen no improvement.
Despite being aware of Ms Lynskey’s menopausal symptoms, they did not consult with OH until a very late stage, this should have been done much earlier. If this had been done, it is likely that more suitable support and adjustments could have been provided. Her improvement could have improved as a result, and even if her performance had not improved, Direct Line would have had stronger grounds for claiming that they had followed a fair performance management process.