And speaking of being stressed brings me to the heated case of Garner v Thorpe Hall Leisure Ltd, and whether a very public staff argument was grounds for dismissal.

Ms Garner initially worked for Thorpe Hall Leisure as a commis chef from June 2022 until August 2022, after which she left to take up employment at a pub in Colchester. She later returned to Thorpe Hall Leisure (THL) on 28 November 2022 and remained employed there until her dismissal on 18 August 2023.

During an appraisal in February 2023, Ms Garner’s mood at work was rated 5 out of 5, despite the stressful and busy kitchen environment. It was, however, noted that her mood occasionally dipped. Her commitment was described as “very good”, although it was commented that she “could take criticism better”. Under the comments/actions section, it was noted that there had been “some instances of finger-pointing instead of saying "Yes, chef"”. The areas identified for improvement included: “take criticism better”.

Ms Garner suffered from depression, anxiety, and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), all of which were known to her employer. Following a period of sick leave from 22 June to 10 July 2023, her return-to-work forms indicated that she had no work-related issues to raise with her employer. It was also noted that she was taking medication and that her mental health issues were ongoing.

On 9 August 2023, Ms Garner was overheard arguing with her colleague and then-partner, Dylan Bolt, after he reportedly slept with one of her friends. The argument took place in a corridor near the kitchen and was audible to multiple staff and guests, including those in the nearby spa reception. During the dispute, Ms Garner was heard shouting offensive language with numerous staff and guests, including those in the spa reception, overhearing the incident.

The argument continued into the outdoor loading bay adjacent to a sunbathing area used by guests, where the restaurant manager intervened, separated the parties, and helped to calm Ms Garner.

The following day, several guests reported complaints about the shouting. Given the seriousness of the conduct and its potential impact on the employer’s reputation, an investigation was launched with the employer’s HR consultants. They advised that the incident could potentially constitute gross misconduct under the Disciplinary Policy, stating that dismissal was an option, but any decision should be made only after a disciplinary hearing.

On 15 August 2023, Ms Garner was sent a letter inviting her to a disciplinary hearing. The letter detailed two instances of gross misconduct and informed her of her right to be accompanied by a work colleague or trade union representative.

Ms Garner arrived late to the disciplinary hearing and did not offer any apology for her lateness. According to THL, she “did not apologise for her behaviour” and “refused to acknowledge the impact of her actions on her employer, dismissing it as having only a ‘little’ impact’.”

It was found that THL was initially of the view that the meeting would likely result in Ms Garner receiving some form of warning rather than dismissal. However, due to her conduct during the disciplinary hearing, it was decided that dismissal was the appropriate sanction.

Following the disciplinary hearing, Ms Garner was sent a letter confirming her dismissal and informing her of her right to appeal. Although she appealed, she did not provide any grounds for her appeal. She subsequently failed to attend the appeal hearing, having not received the notification letter due to a change of address. The employer proceeded with the hearing in her absence, in accordance with its Disciplinary Policy. On 22 September 2023, the employer sent Ms Garner a letter confirming the outcome of the appeal hearing and upholding her dismissal.

Following a period of ACAS Early Conciliation between 7 September 2023 and 19 October 2023, Ms Garner brought claims for wrongful dismissal, denial of the right to be accompanied, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and discrimination arising from disability.

The claims for failure to allow the right to accompaniment and for wrongful dismissal were withdrawn by Ms Garner at the end of the closing submissions and were subsequently dismissed on withdrawal.

The Employment Tribunal found that Ms Garner’s conduct during the disciplinary hearing and the incident on 9 August 2023 were consequences of her disability. However, it concluded that Thorpe Hall Leisure was justified in dismissing her in pursuit of the legitimate aims of protecting its reputation and maintaining professional standards.

The employer was found to have failed to make reasonable adjustments, specifically by not seeking medical evidence. The ET noted that “there was a reasonable prospect this could have led to a different outcome”. It emphasised that the employer ought to have investigated the cause of Ms Garner’s unusual behaviour, particularly given that she had recently returned to work following a period of poor mental health and was taking anti-depressant medication. As a result, she was placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without her disability.

Ms Garner was awarded a total of £13,455.91, of which £11,000 was for injury to feelings arising from the discrimination found.

This case is significant as it highlights the importance of obtaining occupational health advice where there is a possibility that an employee's health may be affecting their conduct. In such situations, occupational health reports should always be considered. As this case demonstrates, even where an employer is ultimately justified in dismissing an employee, a failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the employee’s disability can still result in liability and an award of compensation.