Employer’s refusal to permit the retraction of a resignation constituted disability discrimination

Can an employee retract their resignation if it was submitted hastily during a mental health crisis?

We recently highlighted that emotional incidents at work, or apparent resignations, can arise from grief or personal stress and employers should carefully assess how to handle “heat of the moment” incidents with care to avoid costly mistakes.

The case of Bradley v The Royal Mint Ltd serves as a further example of the need to take care when dealing with a request from an employee to retract their resignation. In this case, a senior employee, Mrs Bradley, resigned saying that she wanted to pursue more lucrative career opportunities. Three weeks later and after her departure had been announced, she asked to withdraw her resignation, explaining that she had not been herself at the time she tendered it. Her manager refused this request.   Surely there was no need to allow her to withdraw it?

Why was this held to be unlawful disability discrimination?

Bradley case

Mrs. Bradley, the Director of HR at the Royal Mint (RM), had suffered from depression and anxiety since 2013 and received a diagnosis of ADHD in 2022. These conditions were known to her employer. Mrs Bradley was prone to impatience and emotional outbursts. During previous meltdowns in 2019 and 2021, she had attempted to resign, but her manager refused to accept her resignation, recognising that these decisions were made while she was unwell.

In April 2022, Mrs Bradley stopped taking her antidepressant medication and started new medication for ADHD, which significantly affected her, causing deep depression, suicidal thoughts, and emotional outbursts, though she generally masked this at work.

On June 15, 2022, during a meeting with her manager, Mrs Bradley announced her resignation to pursue higher-paying opportunities in London. Her resignation was accepted, and a week later, she approved a business announcement about her departure. She confirmed her resignation in writing on June 27, 2022 but three weeks later, she asked to withdraw this, explaining that she had not been herself at the time it was submitted.

This request was denied by her manager, prompting Mrs Bradley to write to the Board, describing her resignation as an “impulsive decision” made while she was “extremely ill and seeking psychiatric support” to find the right medication combination. Her employer did not believe her medical conditions influenced her resignation, deciding that, on that occasion she was not visibly upset or displaying behaviour that would give rise to concerns over her mental health (in contrast to the other times she had discussed resigning), thinking instead that she had resigned for better pay elsewhere. Consequently, her resignation stood. Mrs Bradley raised proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, alleging disability discrimination.

Employment Tribunal decision: discrimination arising from disability

The Employment Tribunal accepted medical evidence showing that Mrs Bradley’s mental state was significantly affected by her medication changes at the time of her resignation. It concluded that she resigned due to her mental health and that her employer had treated her unfavourably by refusing to let her rescind her resignation. The employer then needed to prove that its treatment of Mrs Bradley was “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

RM argued that allowing a senior member of staff to withdraw their resignation after a public announcement would destabilise the business, which the Tribunal accepted was a legitimate aim. However, the Tribunal was not persuaded that RM’s actions were proportionate because it knew Mrs Bradley attributed her resignation to her disabilities and should have sought informed medical advice on how her disabilities affected her behaviour, rather than relying on the manager’s observations.

Key takeaways for employers

Generally, if an employee resigns using clear and unambiguous language, the resignation is taken at face value and cannot be unilaterally withdrawn later. An exception is when the resignation occurs in the “heat of the moment,” such as during a work argument, when, on a proper analysis, there was no actual intention to resign.

Mrs Bradley’s case also highlights that there are also other situations where it is appropriate for an employer to investigate the context of a resignation to determine if the employee’s decision was conscious and rational, although it should be noted that this is an ET decision, not an appeal tribunal ruling, and as such is not binding for other cases.

Therefore, if an employee requests to withdraw their resignation, employers should:

• Consider whether the resignation could be attributable to a disability, even if the employer has a legitimate aim for not allowing the employee to rescind the resignation, and even if the exit has been announced internally.
• Ensure that managers and HR staff are trained to recognise when mental health might be a factor in an employee’s resignation. In some cases, it may be reasonable to offer a “cooling off period” to give the individual time to reflect and consider if their resignation was impulsive.
• Consider seeking medical advice from a qualified professional, particularly if the employee cites the influence of a mental health condition. Obtain guidance about the condition and its impact on the employee’s behaviour.

This information should help the employer assess whether refusing the request is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Employers must balance their legitimate business aims against the discriminatory effect of the refusal and determine if the former outweighs the latter. Simply citing business disruption or inconvenience is not sufficient justification without considering less discriminatory alternatives to refusing the resignation withdrawal. Failure to do so, could be costly and lead to claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Expert advice is available from our Employment Team.

This update contains general information only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice.