An NHS cleaner who was off sick for more than 400 days in just four years and was sacked has won a discrimination case.
Zoe Kitching was off work for several lengthy chunks of time between 2019 and 2023 as she struggled with complex mental health issues, an employment tribunal heard.
The cleaner at Royal Lancaster Infirmary suffered with anxiety, depression, and was bipolar. Her issues were described as complex.
Despite there being a wealth of evidence, health service bosses did not recognise she was disabled and sacked her over her absences.
Judge Childe said they were particularly surprised that one NHS boss insisted she was not disabled ahead of her unfair sacking.
Adding: We find that the [NHS trust] did not act reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason for dismissing [Ms Kitching] in the circumstances.
At no time during the dismissal meeting or appeal meeting did the [NHS trust] agree that [Ms Kitching] was a disabled person... which led to an unfair and fundamentally flawed and discriminatory decision to dismiss [her].
Manchester Employment Tribunal ruled it was irrational and wrong to deny the cleaner of her disability status, adding that she should have been given more sick leave.
The cleaner at Royal Lancaster Infirmary, pictured, suffered with anxiety, depression , and was bipolar and her issues were described as complex
She successfully sued the trust that runs the site, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and won won claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.
The records show Ms Kitching, who worked on the Lancaster Suite, had a total 406 absence days between 2019 and June 2023 - when she was sacked.
Of those days, 85 per cent of them were connected to her disability and 12 per cent were due to non-disability related reasons, such as Covid-19 or general cold and flu.
One of the disability-related absences, from September 2020 to January 2021, lasted 130 days.
It was heard how Ms Kitching sometimes suffered breakdowns which led to having time off.
She asked her boss Ruth Bradburn, patient environment site services manager, if she could cut down her hours at the Lancaster Suite, but Ms Bradburn refused the request.
Despite being previously classified as disabled, in January 2021, the hospital received an occupational health report which curiously stated she was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found.
Over the following months, Mrs Bradburn held meetings with the cleaner over her absences and set her targets to reduce days off.
By June 2023, her absences had improved, but despite this she was sacked by David Passant, Divisional Manager of Facilities.
Christopher Brisley, People & OD Business Partner, told Mr Passant that Ms Kitching was not disabled.
The NHS managers only took the January 2021 Occupational Health report into account and ignored other obvious evidence that Ms Kitching was disabled.
It was heard that Ms Kitching felt her mental health disability had been ignored.
The tribunal judgement said: [Ms Kitching] was extremely upset by the decision to dismiss her and the refusal of Mr Passant to recognise that [she] was a disabled person as defined under the Equality Act 2010.
[Ms Kitching] asked for another chance and explained that her absences had been due to mental health. [She] said it was unnecessary for her to lose her job.
[Ms Kitching] was extremely upset after the decision was taken at appeal not to overturn the original decision to dismiss. Weve accepted [her] evidence that she felt that she had been dismissed twice.
Employment Judge Robert Childe criticised the managers, saying at no point.... did Ruth Bradburn form the view that [Ms Kitching] had a disability and that Mr Passant did not agree that she had a disability.
He said: We find the [NHS trust] should have permitted a high level of sickness absence overall from [Ms Kitching] and the failure to do so was a failure to make adjustments.
Adding: There was a wealth of medical evidence available... that [Ms Kitching] was a disabled person.
We were particularly surprised that Christopher Brisley advised Mr Passant, that [Ms Kitching] was not a disabled person.
The decision to deny that [Ms Kitching] was disabled was irrational and wrong, given the medical evidence available to the contrary.
Compensation will be determined at a later date.