... and emphasised the need for medical evidence.
The Court of Appeal (CA) set out the following principles to be followed in cases where psychiatric injury is claimed to have been caused by an employer's wrongdoing:
Ms Konczak was employed by BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (BAE). During her employment, she alleged that she was being subjected to bullying and harassment, and she was subsequently moved to a new team at a different location.
When Ms Konczak's line manager, Mr Dent, suggested at a meeting that she should move back to her previous team in a different role, Ms Konczak broke down in tears. Following this meeting Mr Dent suggested to Ms Konczak that women took things in a more emotional way than men. Ms Konczak was subsequently signed off with work-related stress and was eventually dismissed.
She brought various claims in the Employment Tribunal (ET). The ET upheld her sex discrimination claim in respect of Mr Dent's comment, and found there had been a failure to make reasonable adjustments, and her dismissal had been unfair, discriminatory and had amounted to victimisation.
She was subsequently awarded £318,629.66 compensation for pecuniary loss. BAE appealed against this decision on the ground that the ET had failed to consider the extent to which events prior to the meeting had caused or contributed to Ms Konczak's mental state.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) remitted the case to the ET, which held that the psychiatric injury was indivisible. After having their subsequent appeal dismissed by the EAT, BAE appealed to the CA.
The CA dismissed BAE's appeal. It agreed with the ET's view (confirmed by a medical expert) that Ms Konczak had not been suffering with a mental illness up until the meeting with her line manager. However, the sexist remarks had been the 'final straw' that caused her to become mentally ill. On this basis, the ET had been right to reject BAE's argument that the compensation should be apportioned due to a pre-existing illness.