Employment dispute: Job offer withdrawn
A legal business did not know a solicitor was disabled and had bipolar disorder when it decided to withdraw his job offer, an employment tribunal has ruled.
Employment Judge Phil Allen in Manchester said the decision by Cheadle firm Peach Law to withdraw Craig Oldale’s job offer was because its managing director had formed the view that he had been “dishonest in what he had said to her”.
Judge Allen went on: “Irrespective of the accuracy of that view, we entirely accepted the second respondent’s evidence that that was why she made her decision.
“We did not need to decide (nor have we) whether the claimant was in fact dishonest… the key issue was what the second respondent believed.”
The tribunal heard that Mr Oldale, admitted as a solicitor in 2009, was a specialist employment lawyer. He was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder in 2017.
After a break in employment between April 2021 and August 2022, which he “at least in part” attributed to his mental heath, Mr Oldale became head of employment at Aticus Law in Manchester.
He was ill over the 2022 Christmas and New Year period and eventually resigned in February 2023 without going back. Judge Allen said Mr Oldale was bringing a separate claim against Aticus Law.
A recruitment consultant put Mr Oldale in touch with Peach Law, an unregulated firm which specialises in employment law and HR. It was common ground that, during his three interviews, he did not mention either his impairment or absence from work – nor was he asked about it.
Mr Oldale was offered the job and resigned from Aticus Law.
The tribunal names the managing director of Peach Law as Ms DL Armitage. While Companies House lists her as Lindsay Dawn Armitage, the Solicitors Regulation Authority website calls her Lindsey Dawn Bell. She is a former partner and head of employment at JMW Solicitors and the Manchester office of Clarke Willmott.
Ms Armitage received a reference from Edward Judge, the managing partner of Aticus Law, on 23 March, which said that Mr Oldale had been on sick leave “from 3 January to date”.
She told the tribunal that this was not consistent with what she believed the claimant had told her previously and she believed that the claimant may have been dishonest.
After a conversation with Mr Oldale, the contents of which were disputed, she withdrew the offer on the basis of dishonesty, which he strongly denied.
Mr Oldale argued that Ms Armitage knew about his disability because she talked to Mr Judge about it. The tribunal “entirely accepted” her evidence that in fact they had not spoken.
Apart from this, there was “no other evidence” to support a contention that Ms Armitage knew anything about Mr Oldale’s ill health or disability – even on Mr Oldale’s account of the disputed conversation.
Judge Allen said Mr Oldale also “relied upon the fact that he had worked for Aticus Law four days per week and that he wished to work four days a week” for Peach Law, as meaning that Ms Armitage “should reasonably have been expected to know about his disability”, but her understanding was that “the request related to childcare”.
The tribunal dismissed Mr Oldale’s complaints of direct disability discrimination and of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability.
That’s a bit of an embarrassing case. I do however refute the suggestion he was disabled as having bipolar disorder as good enough reason to withdraw his application.