British Airways has been found guilty of unfair dismissal after it sacked a veteran flight attendant with an otherwise exemplary sickness record who was diagnosed with stress and anxiety as she fought to keep her job during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Jennifer Clifford was a senior cabin crew member who had dedicated 40 years of unblemished service to British Airways when she was sacked just a few months after asking for help to return to work following her mental health diagnosis.
Having started her career with the airline back in 1983, Jennifer had never had a significant period of sickness absence until nearly four decades later. Her sickness was precipitated by a massive company restructuring that occurred during the pandemic.
Jennifer was initially furloughed in April 2020, and after several nerve-racking months, she was informed that she was being made redundant. A short time later, however, Jennifer was told she could keep her job but only if she accepted a demotion two grades below her previous role as an in-flight manager.
Jennifer accepted the demotion and was immediately furloughed for more than two years. During this time, Jennifer started to fight a grievance against British Airways in an attempt to win back her old role as a manager.
By September 2021, British Airways finally recalled Jennifer back to work, but shortly before she was due to start flying, she was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and work-related stress.
At this time, Jennifer was still fighting her grievance with the airline, and her GP had signed her off work.
Just months after winning her grievance and being offered her old job as an in-flight manager back, Jennifer suggested that a phased return to work with ground duties two days per week would be a good way for her to rebuild her confidence with a view to resuming flying duties at a later stage.
Jennifer had asked for a placement at London Gatwick Airport as this was closer to where she lived and would reduce the stress of commuting to Heathrow. No such placement at Gatwick, however, ever happened.
An Employment Tribunal found that a manager overseeing Jennifer’s absence never made an effort to secure a placement at Gatwick and instead arranged for her to work in an internal ‘help hub’ at Heathrow Airport.
This was described as a busy and noisy environment, which did little to improve Jennifer’s anxiety – although her boss in the help hub dismissed her mental health struggles as “just a little bit of anxiety.”
By December 2022, Jennifer’s absence manager eventually offered her another ground placement, but stunningly, then announced during the same meeting that a termination date had been set for March 2023.
Despite the fact that her second ground placement went well, and that Jennifer’s own GP had recommended a continued phased return to work, British Airways sacked Jennifer on March 14, 2023.
Jennifer filed a claim of unfair dismissal with an employment tribunal, and in June, the tribunal ruled that British Airways was guilty. The full decision has now been published.
The decision notes:
- “The decision to dismiss the claimant was not within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.”
- “The second ground placement was not a meaningful attempt at a phased return, because the claimant was dismissed before she started it.”
- “A reasonable employer would have given the claimant a longer and more suitable phased return and would, in line with its policy, have considered redeployment to a ground-based role before deciding to dismiss her.”
The tribunal slammed Jennifer’s absence manager at British Airways, saying she “adopted an inflexible approach, maintaining the idea of a ‘usual’ phased return, and failing to consider what the claimant [Jennifer] herself required.”
“This did not achieve the respondent’s [BA’s] aims of supporting staff who are absent due to sickness by facilitating their return to work, considering termination fairly, or maintaining an effective and reliable staffing base.”
The tribunal also ruled that the manager failed to give consideration to BA’s own medical advisors, didn’t consider Jennifer’s concerns about the proposed work placement, and failed to follow up on the idea of a placement at Gatwick Airport.
She also “raised the question of dismissal at a very early stage” – in fact, the manager first warned Jennifer that she would be terminated just one month after her first absence review meeting.
“We have concluded that it was not proportionate for the respondent to dismiss the claimant at that time,” the ruling continued.
The tribunal is still to decide whether British Airways should be forced to give Jennifer he job back or pay compensation. A further hearing date has been set for late September 2025.
In response to the ruling, British Airways said: “We are disappointed with the decision of the Employment Tribunal and respect the judgment.”
Matt’s Take
The behavior of British Airways at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic made the airline a national disgrace. The carrier was blasted for its so-called ‘fire and rehire’ policy in which the airline planned to dismiss tens of thousands of staff and then rehire them on less pay and with worse terms and conditions.
What seems so shocking about this case is that Jennifer’s mental health struggles were likely caused or worsened by the stress of what happened during this time
