Unfairly Dismissed? You Must Take Reasonable Steps to Mitigate Your Loss

Those who are unfairly dismissed are required to take reasonable steps to mitigate their financial loss, usually by hunting for a new job. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in the case of a woman who made not one application for fresh employment in the three years after she…

Nov 25, 2022

Pexels anderson guerra 1197132 1024x683

Those who are unfairly dismissed are required to take reasonable steps to mitigate their financial loss, usually by hunting for a new job. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in the case of a woman who made not one application for fresh employment in the three years after she was sacked.

The woman, who worked for a financial services company, launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings after she was dismissed, purportedly on grounds of redundancy. Following a liability hearing, she succeeded in her whistleblowing claim and her dismissal was ruled automatically unfair. A remedies hearing followed and her former employer was ordered to pay her more than £240,000 in compensation.

She accepted before the ET that she had not looked or applied for any jobs at all since her dismissal. As to why not, her case was, in part, that any such application would have been pointless because any prospective employer would have stigmatised her as a whistleblower and not given her a job.

The ET found that her decision not to embark on job hunting was reasonable during the period between her dismissal and three months after judgment was given following the liability hearing. On that basis, she was entitled to compensation in respect of 85 weeks’ loss of earnings and employment benefits.

Ruling on the employer’s challenge to the amount of her award, the EAT noted that whistleblowers are, unfortunately, sometimes stigmatised and struggle to find fresh employment. The same is true of other employees who gain an unfair reputation as troublemakers because they have litigated against former employers, even if their claims are entirely meritorious and legitimately pursued.

In upholding the appeal, however, the EAT noted that there was no evidence put forward specifically to support the woman’s assertion that, because of her whistleblowing claim, any application she made for a new job would inevitably have been fruitless. The ET made no findings of fact to support such a conclusion. The case was remitted to the same ET for fresh consideration.

Treating Every Employee in the Same Way May Itself Be Discriminatory

Anti-discrimination laws are often viewed as requiring employers to treat all their staff in the same way. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, the positive duty to make reasonable adjustments to cater for disabled workers’ needs may require them to be treated more favourably than their colleagues. The case concerned a quality controller in a food packing plant who was disabled by back pain and depression. He worked 12-hour night shifts in the refrigerated plant and was on…

ET Erred in Considering ‘Last Straw’ in Constructive Dismissal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld an HGV driver’s appeal against the rejection of his constructive unfair dismissal claim, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had misdirected itself on the proper approach to considering the ‘last straw’. The HGV driver’s role involved collecting spent grain from distilleries, taking it to a biogas plant and tipping it into an intake hopper. Following operational changes at the plant, he felt under pressure and found it difficult to take…

Women are More Likely to Bear Childcare Responsibilities – That’s a Fact

Judges do not operate in a vacuum and are entitled to take the view that some facts are so obvious that there is no requirement to prove them. In an important ruling, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that that principle applies to the fact that women are more likely to bear childcare responsibilities than men. The case involved a community nurse who was primary carer for her three children, two of them disabled. Due to her responsibilities as a mother, she worked only on Wednesdays…