In the recent case of Easton v B&Q plc [2015] the High Court considered the circumstances in which an employer will be liable for psychiatric injury to an employee caused by workplace stress. B&Q successfully defended against the employee’s claim as the judge held that injury was not reasonably foreseeable by the employer.
Facts
The claimant was a manager of a supermarket and by all accounts was considered good at his job. Mr Easton worked at a very busy store and suffered from stress at work. He was eventually signed off with depression and received treatment for five months. On his return to work he was relocated to a quieter store that was also closer to his house. The change of store didn’t work out however and Mr Easton was recertified as unfit for work due to depression. At this point he made his claim for damages against B&Q on the basis that the psychiatric injury he suffered was caused by workplace stress.
Law
Stress is a complex workplace issue not only because it is difficult to identify, but also because there is no legislation in the UK which specifically deals with it. The rights and duties of employers and employees in relation to stress derive from a combination of different statutory and common-law sources:
- Health and safety legislation. Under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and related statutory instruments, employers have a duty to undertake risk assessments and manage activities to reduce the incidence of stress at work. Failure to carry out adequate risk assessment was a main argument made by Mr Easton in the current case.
- Common law of delict. This is the main source of cases on stress and is based on the law of negligence (i.e. an employer has failed or breached its common law duty of care for the health of an employee in the workplace).
- Restrictions on working hours. The main working hour’s restrictions in the UK come from the Working Time Regulations 1998.
- Disability discrimination. Anxiety, stress and depression (and related conditions) having a substantial and long-term adverse effect on an employee's day-to-day activities may amount to a disability, giving rise to protection under the Equality Act 2010.
- Contract. Breach of express or implied terms of the employment contract in relation to claims for constructive dismissal, psychiatric injury, harassment, permanent health insurance (PHI) and frustration of contract.
Decision
The question for the court was whether Mr Easton’s injury was reasonably foreseeable by B&Q. The judge held that on the facts of the case Mr Easton’s injury was not and the claim therefore failed. The judge considered that Easton had a long history of managing busy stores and had no psychiatric history. The first breakdown he suffered could not have been anticipated by his employer. On his return to work B&Q were aware of his illness but steps were taken to reduce stress (moving him to a quieter store) and in particular the judge found Mr Easton had made insufficient efforts to notify B&Q of on-going symptoms.
Comment
Fraser Auld, Associate in our employment law team confirms: “Stress at work is a common issue for employers however this case demonstrates the high bar set by courts in relation to “foreseeability” in personal injury cases. Once the psychiatric issues came to the attention of the employer they took steps to engage with the employee and reduce the cause of the stress, they also had a policy on stress at work that invited employees to notify the employer of any stress related symptoms. These factors were key to B&Q successfully defending the claim by Mr Easton.”
