1/ Hill v Lloyds Bank: A reasonable adjustments case whose real interest to practitioners is concerned with what makes an appropriate recommendation. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ In this case, Mrs Hill complained of bullying by her line manager & their line manager. She was off for quite some time suffering stress as a result. On return, she was placed in a different branch/region to the alleged bullies. She wanted an undertaking that would remain so.
3/ The undertaking she wanted was to the effect that she'd never be required to work with them & if that proved impossible she'd be offered a severance payment akin to redundancy. It was an undertaking the bank wasn't prepared to give.
4/ Although the bank had made efforts (successfully) to separate them, & intended to use best endeavours to maintain that separation, they weren't prepared to give an undertaking that this would always remain so, nor as to the severance solution if that proved impossible.
5/ Even though she was happy at work, Mrs Hill suffered anxiety through the lack of reassurance given the lack of undertaking. She brought a reasonable adjustments claim based on this. At the ET she won that claim.
6/ The decision was upheld by the EAT given that (i) not giving undertakings was a bank policy; (ii) the resulting fear & dread amounted to substantial disadvantage as against someone not disabled through anxiety; (iii) it was a reasonable adjustment to make.
7/ The 3rd point is of some interest given the severance/redundancy aspect of the undertaking sought. The bank argued that this was not a reasonable adjustment given that H may not actually be redundant & it would be an adjustment to end work rather than keep her in work. 
8/ The EAT was comfortable with the adjustment. Its purpose was to provide a comfort blanket backstop to give H the reassurance to stay in work. Although not relied upon by the EAT, it reminds of how the CA dealt with a similar argument in a different context in Griffiths.
9/ The ET in Hill originally gave a recommendation as a remedy, but reversed this on reconsideration. The recommendation was for the giving of an undertaking that H not work with the bullies or to give her a redundancy-equivalent severance if that proved impossible.
10/ First, it's worth recalling the relevant statutory provision on recommendations under s.124 EqA.
11/ The bank argued the recommendation set out financial provision requirements, which were not appropriate for a recommendation. The EAT disagreed, noting recommendations re continuing sick pay, for example, were effectively making financial provision.
12/ The bank also argued the statute didn't allow for recommendations which were, in effect, open-ended in time. The EAT had 2 answers: (i) there could be specification on entering the undertaking, & (ii) there was no problem with a recommendation lasting indefinitely.
13/ A third objection was that the recommendation contained alternatives. Given the penalties under s.124(7) for non-compliance, is that appropriate? That argument was, in effect, sidestepped by again concentrating on the recommendation just being to give the undertaking.
14/ The EAT next looked at the ET's decision to anonymise the alleged bullies without giving reason to do so & hence without considering the Rule 50 test, the Fallow criteria or the ECHR position. That was remitted back to the ET.
15/ In reaching that final conclusion, the EAT unusually referred to an 'interesting case in the ECHR' without letting the reader know what it was! Doubtless the victor, @daniel_barnett, or his brilliant opponent @JudeShepherd42 can let us into that secret! #ukemplaw
