A woman working as a team manager who was sacked after being signed off sick for more than four years has lost her case claiming unfair dismissal.
Jeananne Henderson tried to sue her employers for discrimination after losing her post on the grounds of ill health, having suffered from a condition which caused brain fog and insomnia.
She was also left unable to predict when she might come back to work due to having fibromyalgia, which causes widespread pain and extreme tiredness.
Ms Henderson, 55, stopped working in 2018 and told bosses in 2022 her ‘fibro fog’ meant her ‘vast’ symptoms prevented her from leading a team properly,
Her sick pay was cut by insurers Legal & General and her bosses at Maximus UK Services decided to terminate her contract on the grounds of ill health.
Ms Henderson was ‘unhappy’ with this news and tried to sue for disability discrimination but this has now been rejected by a judge who said the manager had already been kept in employment for an ‘extraordinarily long time’.
The tribunal, held in Edinburgh, heard Ms Henderson worked for Scottish-based Maximus UK Services which carries out medical assessments on individuals for state benefits, on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions.
Ms Henderson was responsible for managing a nine-person administrative team and ensuring the preservation of medical information and records.
She was signed off sick due to illness in October 2018 and seen the following month by Occupational Health advisers, who recommended the manager continue her absence due to suffering anxiety, low mood and pain.
In December, she was seen again and it was advised Ms Henderson should not return to work for a further four to six weeks.
This assessment noted that the manager ‘appreciated the concern’ shown by the Edinburgh-based business but found the ‘regularity of contact’ to have a ‘negative effect’ on her recovery.
Her line manager at the time often made contact with Ms Henderson to ensure the company knew how she was feeling and to ‘offer support to her’ but Ms Henderson had still not returned to work by December 2020.
In a welfare meeting, she expressed concern to her boss that she was struggling with concentration, pain, anxiety, exhaustion, panic attacks and tiredness.
Soon after, in a meeting in February 2021, Ms Henderson said she did not feel ready to return ‘now or anywhere in the near future’ due to how she was feeling.
Employment Judge Murdo MacLeod has now said in a judgment: ‘Over a significant period of time, there was very little change in [Ms Henderson’s] condition, her ability to return to work or the information which was being received from her in each of the meetings.’
On October 20 of that year, another meeting was held in which Ms Henderson was told they would look to advertise her role and when she returned to work they would place her in an alternative position.
The tribunal noted that at this time Ms Henderson had been off work for just over three years.
In February 2022, a further welfare meeting was held by telephone and this found there had been ‘no significant changes’ in her condition.
The tribunal said throughout Ms Henderson’s absence, her income had been protected under a policy held by the business and Legal & General Assurance.
In April 2022, the legal group wrote to bosses and said that her symptoms ‘no longer met their definition of incapacity’ and so they could no longer pay any further benefit towards Ms Henderson.
Legal & General wrote: ‘We are no longer satisfied that Jeananne is suffering from symptoms of such severity that she should be prevented from fulfilling the duties of her insured occupation and being prevented from returning to work.’
Ms Henderson was ‘not happy’ with this declaration and in a welfare meeting that month she said she still did not want to discuss any return to work date.
The manager met her boss to explain how her GP could not understand the decision by Legal & General, and believed the test upon which their decision was based was related to dementia rather than fibromyalgia.
Ms Henderson was invited to a meeting – due to take place in November 2022 – and told if a return-to-work date was not agreed then her contract may be terminated.
During the meeting, Ms Henderson told colleagues she did not know if she was in a position for a phased return, adding: ‘Because of fibromyalgia I just don’t know how I am going to feel – don’t know if it will be three good days or not.
‘If I am ever having a good day is only a little less pain that day before, but I am always in pain.
‘I don’t know if you know about fibromyalgia, but the symptoms are vast – have insomnia, I can’t function properly, I struggle to get dressed, shower, etc, all things you take for granted.
‘I had fibro fog and can go blank and not remember what I was going to say, so I am not in a position to lead a team.’
A further meeting was held in January last year before her contract was terminated on February 28, 2023, on the grounds of ill-health capacity.
Ms Henderson, who represented herself during the tribunal, was ‘very unhappy’ and considered that she had been treated unfairly.
The former manager believed that she should have had more occupational health referrals over her absence and argued that the process had been very haphazard without any real structure.
She later sued for disability discrimination but these claims were not upheld.
EJ Macleod said: ‘[Ms Henderson] had been absent for more than 4 years from work, which in the Tribunal’s experience is extraordinarily long without dismissal being considered, but at no stage was there any foreseeable date by which she could be anticipated to return to work.’
The tribunal said ‘sadly’ the manager was ‘never well enough to contemplate returning to work’.
But they did not believe she was dismissed because of her fibromyalgia.
They said: ‘In our judgment, the respondent allowed the claimant to remain in employment for an extraordinarily long time, even once Legal & General had decided to withdraw her income protection.
‘We are unable to sustain [Ms Henderson’s] submission that her dismissal amounted to disability discrimination.’