In this case, the High Court found that an employer’s handling of a sexual harassment complaint breached its duty of care to the accused employee and caused the employee psychiatric injury. The High Court also dismissed a claim for misuse of the accused employee's private information in the complaint and associated disciplinary proceedings.
Facts
Mr Woodhead was employed by WTTV Limited (WTTV) from 2016 as its Managing Director. He had a history of psychiatric conditions, including depression and anxiety, and had been a recovering alcoholic since 1991. On 28 November 2019 he was called into a meeting where he was told that a freelance colleague, referred to as “NPQ”, had made complaints of sexual harassment against him (related to events in 2017-18). In her complaints, NPQ had disclosed to WTTV personal information that Mr Woodhead had shared with her during conversations discussing their shared experiences as recovering alcoholics. Mr Woodhead was not told the purpose of the meeting in advance nor given a copy of the complaints. He was required to respond to the complaints there and then, in a lengthy meeting. He was then suspended while further investigation took place. After the meeting Mr Woodhead became very unwell and was treated by a consultant psychiatrist. By 11 December 2019 the consultant had concluded that Mr Woodhead was suffering from an "adjustment disorder … which severely affects his ability to function …" and subsequently Mr Woodhead was admitted to hospital for treatment as an in-patient for several weeks and then treated as an outpatient for a further seven weeks. He remained signed off sick from work until his employment terminated by reason of redundancy on 8 May 2020 – he had been given notice of termination on 8 November 2019, which was unconnected to the allegations and before they came to light.
Mr. Woodhead brought claims in the High Court against WTTV for:
- Negligence: Alleging that WTTV breached its duty of care by mishandling the disciplinary process. He alleged that the conduct of the investigatory and disciplinary process was deficient in various ways, and that this caused him psychiatric injury
- Misuse of Private Information: Contending that NPQ’s disclosure of his private information constituted a breach of privacy, for which WTTV as the employer was vicariously liable, or in the alternative that WTTV was liable for misusing the information itself
Decision: the disciplinary process
Employers have a duty not to expose an employee to an unreasonable risk of foreseeable psychiatric injury arising from employment. The Court found that it was reasonably foreseeable that Mr Woodhead was at risk of psychiatric injury because of his medical history. Once the employer knew about that, aspects of its conduct of the disciplinary process were a breach of its duty of care. In particular:
- The fact-finding meeting of 28 November 2019 was badly handled. Mr Woodhead was called into a lengthy meeting without prior notice. He was not given a written copy or summary of the complaints. He was not suspended pending an investigatory meeting (which would have been in line with WTTV's Disciplinary Policy and would have included an opportunity for him to respond to the complaints at a later meeting). Instead, the meeting was conducted as an investigatory meeting.
- Out of five allegations, the employer decided that two would not be pursued and one would only be pursued in part. However, this was never communicated to Mr Woodhead, and he was instead repeatedly asked for his account for all five allegations. In this way, WTTV gave a false impression of the extent of the matters that Mr Woodhead had to respond to.
- WTTV had unreasonably attempted to pursue the disciplinary procedure after Mr Woodhead’s admission to hospital and while he remained on sick leave
- WTTV had required Mr Woodhead to see an occupational health adviser when information from Mr Woodhead's treating doctors made it clear that he was not fit for work or to participate in the disciplinary process
Decision: misuse of private information
The Court accepted that the information NPQ had disclosed to WTTV regarding Mr Woodhead's conversations with her about his experience as a recovering alcoholic was private. Mr Woodhead had a reasonable expectation that it would remain confidential because it had been shared in the context of friendship. However, the Court held that the disclosure was justified because:
- It was made for the limited and specific purpose of making a complaint under WTTV's workplace respect policy
- NPQ fell within the scope of that policy, and the complaint was a legitimate use of the policy
- There was a sufficient connection between the matters NPQ complained of and her involvement with WTTV even though Mr Woodhead's comments were not made during meetings on company premises
What does this mean for employers?
This was a negligence and personal injury claim brought in the civil courts rather than a claim in the employment tribunal. However, the decision provides useful pointers for employers which are also relevant to avoiding potential unfair dismissal, breach of contract and disability discrimination claims. Employers must take extra care where employees involved in disciplinary proceedings are suffering from mental health conditions; they should handle the process sensitively in terms of support for the employee, and consider the timing and content of information provided. In particular, employers should always follow a fair process (including following their own disciplinary process). In appropriate circumstances it will be useful to obtain medical advice and to follow that advice to make adjustments to processes if required.
The case also serves as a reminder to employers to take care when using employees' private information, although such use may be permissible if (as here) it is proportionate to a legitimate objective.
Woodhead v (1) WTTV Limited (2) NBC Universal International Limited
