£7,000 Awarded to Woman Pressured by Employer To Attend Meetings While Recovering from Hysterectomy

A woman has been awarded £7,094.91 in damages for injury to feelings after an employment tribunal ruled her employer had subjected her to unwanted conduct, humiliating her during her recovery from a hysterectomy. The tribunal found that the behaviour constituted disability harassment, although it noted the actions were unintentional.

Background of the Case

Crette Berry began working as a contact centre agent for Anglian Water in May 2022. While Berry initially withheld information about her history of anxiety and depression, she informed her employer that she would need a hysterectomy in the future.

In July 2022, an occupational health assessment confirmed that Berry had been suffering from endometriosis for approximately a decade. The report also noted that she was experiencing early menopause symptoms as a result of her treatment while awaiting her surgery.

Endometriosis, as defined by the NHS, involves cells similar to the womb lining growing in other parts of the body, often causing severe pain, heavy periods, and fatigue. Although there is no cure, treatments range from pain management to surgical interventions, including hysterectomy.

Workplace Challenges

In the summer of 2022, Berry separated from her partner and requested reduced working hours to manage childcare responsibilities. Initially denied, her request was eventually approved. However, by September, Berry had been absent for nine days, prompting her employer to schedule an "attendance support meeting."

In October, her pay was reduced to half, and she went on sick leave at the end of November. Berry's hysterectomy was performed on 22 December, after which she required a recovery period of three to four weeks. Despite this, she never physically returned to work.

Employer's Contact During Recovery

The tribunal heard that Anglian Water was aware of Berry's need for recovery, yet her manager, Leanne Harper, contacted her on 5 January 2023 to schedule another attendance support meeting for 13 January.

An occupational health report issued on 6 January deemed Berry fit to attend meetings remotely, but Harper followed up with a WhatsApp message on 10 January. Berry replied that she was 'very poorly' and battling a post-surgery infection that was resistant to antibiotics.

On 12 January, the day before the scheduled meeting, Berry's partner informed Harper that she was too unwell to participate. Harper responded empathetically but reiterated the need for a discussion, stating:

'I hope that you are OK and will soon be feeling better. I need to speak with you directly in relation to your absence, so can you contact me as soon as you can. You have been cleared by occupational health to attend company meetings therefore it is important that I meet with you.'

Berry's phone sent a message criticising the company's approach, stating: 'The pressure you are putting on [Berry] is unfair and immoral.' It also mentioned that Berry had torn stitches due to the stress of attempting to meet workplace expectations.

The Tribunal's Decision

Harper postponed the meeting until another occupational health report could be obtained, but when Berry refused to share the new report, the meeting was held without her on 17 February. Berry resigned on 25 February and pursued legal action against Anglian Water for disability harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and constructive dismissal.

While the tribunal dismissed the claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments and constructive dismissal, it upheld the disability harassment claim. The tribunal ruled:

'Reading those messages and taking into account that [Berry] had undergone surgery related to her disability, we find that each instance of contact...was unwanted conduct.'

The tribunal acknowledged that Harper had not intended to humiliate Berry but concluded that the actions nonetheless had that effect.

Outcome and Implications

Berry was awarded over £7,000 in damages, a sum reflecting the impact on her mental health during her post-operative recovery. This case underscores the importance of employers adhering to legal and ethical standards when managing employees with health-related needs, particularly in ensuring that workplace communications do not exacerbate existing vulnerabilities.