A mental health practitioner has been granted £13K by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on the basis of employment access discrimination, following a disparaging description of them in a draft email by a charity secretary. According to the antagonist, the coarse language used was a friendly remark applauding the claimant’s dedication to a health project.
The claimant took the discrimination claim to the trustees of the charity. In 2019, they began work on a mental health initiative in western Ireland, aimed at offering round-the-clock services at a café. State funding covered their work on the project during 2019 and 2020, yet they continued to evolve the project throughout 2021 without remuneration.
By mid to late 2021, The Health Service Executive (HSE) informed the claimant that to launch the project, it needed a partnership with an existing mental health charity – the party being sued. This strategy was approved in December 2021.
The claimant argues that, in June 2022, he discovered inaccuracies regarding board member registrations on the Charity Regulator, despite notifying the defendant six months prior to rectify this. This misinformation led the HSE to declare the Memorandum of Understanding null and void in June 2022, resulting in the centre’s non-opening.
In April 2022, the claimant emailed the charity stating that they needed time off from the project due to its ongoing problems, requesting time to “replenish and repair”. The claimant only became aware of a draft letter that the charity secretary intended to send to the HSE following a Freedom of Information request.
According to the secretary, the plaintiff’s unsteady behaviour was apparently the result of rigorous work without any substantial compensation, combined with trauma from past events. She proposed that before he resumes his duties, he must come to terms with and forgive his previous actions that led him to his current state of distress.
In her provisional letter, she expressed affection for every aspect of her job, even for the eccentric individuals she encountered, including the plaintiff himself. However, she voiced no keenness to reestablish a professional relationship with him whilst he was in his current emotional state. Instead, she suggested he should take a breather and come back when he felt reenergized and ready to build a solid foundation for his future.
The plaintiff asserted that the term “mad f***er” used in reference to him was an offensive insult. It was argued this term was a disrespectful way to characterize someone grappling with mental health problems.
The letter was not delivered, upon advice from the HSE, that it ought to remain unsent. Following this, the plaintiff claimed he did not receive any job offers, even though the board was supportive of his return.
The secretary defended her usage of the term “mad f***er”, attesting it was included in an attempt to add a touch of light-heartedness to her letter. She implied that the plaintiff was very motivated and goal-driven, possibly even at his expense, and that the term was not meant as a disrespectful characterization.
She clarified, the term was intended as an appreciative note recognizing the plaintiff’s commitment to work hard as opposed to a hostile remark.
In a gathering which included the board, the secretary, the plaintiff, and the HSE in May 2022, it was confirmed that the secretary had no evidence to support her assertion that the plaintiff suffered from a mental health disorder.
A HSE spokesperson shared with the WRC that in that meeting, the secretary proposed that the plaintiff was plagued with a mental health concern requiring professional care and that he should consider stepping away from his post until he sought help.
The secretary suggested that her reference to “mental health concerns” in the meeting was unintentional and she intended to mention “anger issues” instead.
Interpreting the judgement of the WRC, Emile Daly, the presiding officer, confessed that it was “hard to comprehend” how, given their “extensive years of experience in the mental health sector”, someone could write such a letter.
Ms Daly was of the view that the fact that it was just a draft letter did not detract from its significance. Even though the degree of exposure could heighten the effect on the victim, she clarified that it didn’t negate the occurrence of the discriminatory conduct, as highlighted by Ms Daly.