And speaking of SAD — or just sad —brings me to the rather dismal case of Eyles v Ministry of Defence, and the lack of a Good Luck card on his departure from a posting, which prompted a trip to the tribunal.

Mr Eyles had worked with the Ministry of Defence since 2020. He still does, but during the period relevant to the claims, he was based at SHAPE in Belgium, working as a Defence Accommodation Stores Manager, on a three-year posting.

Up until May 2021, Mr Eyles managed a team; however, this responsibility was removed from him as part of a wider organisational restructure. As a result, the team he oversaw was subsequently reduced in size. Mr Eyles claimed that “the removal of his team amounted to a demotion” and that he was thereafter “restricted to menial tasks.” He further alleged that this treatment was “motivated by knowledge of his disabilities.”

Mr Eyles was disabled, by reason of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and paranoia, and the MoD claimed awareness of this since December 2021, following an Occupational Health report. In contrast, Mr Eyles asserted that the MoD was aware of his disabilities in 2020, prior to the commencement of his employment. The OH report, among other things, stated that Mr Eyles “reports that over the past 16 months he has suffered with mental health issues, which have been triggered by work-related stress”.

In December 2021, Mr Eyles raised a grievance against colleagues, alleging that he had been subjected to harassment and bullying. The grievance included several complaints about his line manager. At no point in either the grievance document or the investigation report was there any discussion of his mental or physical conditions playing a role. As a result of the grievance, his line manager was changed; however, it was noted that “it was impossible to separate them as they worked in the same vicinity” and Mr Eyles wished to remain in his role.

In February 2022, Mr Eyles submitted his first Employment Tribunal claim.

In September 2022,  in response to his request dated 13 May 2022, Mr Eyles was informed that his tour would not be extended for a further two years. The reason given for this decision was 'operational restructuring’.  The ET found that this was not related to the grievance Mr Eyles had submitted in December 2021, as he had claimed.

Two months later, Mr Eyles’s application for the position of DIO ESH Housing Manager was unsuccessful, and he was not invited to interview. Shortly afterwards, an earlier job offer for the role of Field Contract Repair Department Manager was withdrawn on the grounds that he did not meet “the medical supportability requirements required for the role.” Mr Eyles appealed the decision, but it was upheld.

Mr Eyles left his post on 16 July 2023, following the completion of his initial three-year term and the refusal of his request for an extension. Upon his departure, he did not receive a “Good Luck” card or presentation, which he later claimed constituted harassment related to his disability.

Shortly afterwards, Mr Eyles submitted his second ET claim, which the ET decided to consolidate with the first. As a result, the consolidated claims comprised allegations of direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, unfavourable treatment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation.

Ultimately, the ET dismissed all claims. It found that Mr Eyles’s disability had no bearing on the changes to his responsibilities or the fact that he did not receive a Good Luck card. Furthermore, while the ET acknowledged that not receiving a Good Luck card or presentation constituted 'unwanted conduct', as Mr Eyles was upset that his departure from SHAPE was not formally recognised, it noted that such gestures were discretionary and typically arranged by colleagues. It was also highlighted that this was not the first occasion on which a departing employee had not received a card or presentation.

In conclusion, this case highlights that treatment which merely causes hurt feelings does not, on its own, amount to harassment. Although Mr Eyles was upset by not receiving a Good Luck card, the conduct did not meet the legal threshold for harassment. Similarly, for a claim of direct disability discrimination to succeed, it must be clearly established that the employer was aware of the employee’s disability and that this knowledge influenced the treatment in question, which in this case did not occur.