The employee, referred to in the case as Mrs D, worked in the
finance department and was responsible for integrating the payroll
functions of a series of acquired companies. At the same time, the
court heard, pressure was exerted within the company to keep
headcount costs down. The resulting stress on Mrs D, who was at one
point working over 60 hours a week and into the small hours at
home, contributed to a depression which has left her unable to work
for the past five years, the court found.
An email from senior Intel manager Larry Walz shown to the court
said: "Intel's expenses are growing faster than our revenue…Scott
and I will be slowing Employee Services' growth…This e-mail
explains exactly what you need to do…no more hiring without
approval… No hiring means no externals or internals; this applies
to replacement and new positions…This rule applies to all
situations; if you think you have our approval to hire, you need to
rejustify…first."
The case heard that Mrs D felt that she "was trying to juggle
the hours required of two employees," and that "it would have been
surprising if I had not shown signs of the stresses and
strains."
The case relied heavily on the judgment in a similar case
brought by a teacher, Mrs Hatton, against the Chairman of the
Governors of a high school. In Mrs D's case, however, the previous
instances of depression which the judge said should have warned the
employer of a possibility of a relapse took place outside the
office. Mrs D suffered post-natal depression, something of which
her employers were aware, which Justice Goldring said should have
alerted Intel to the possibility of depression becoming a problem
again.
"This decision is a timely reminder of the duty of care
employers owe their employees," said Ben Doherty, an employment
lawyer with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW. "It is of
interest as Mrs D's previous instances of depression were not
related to workplace stress and therefore demonstrate that
employers should pay particular attention to employees who have
suffered from depression irrespective of its cause."
The situation was said by psychiatrists to be salvageable up
until March 2001, at which point Mrs D's depression was too far
advanced to halt quickly. Goldring said that the company clearly
had the resources to help.
"I have no doubt that a company with the resources of Intel
could immediately have ameliorated the position as far as Mrs. D
was concerned," he wrote. "When she finally suffered her breakdown
in June 2001 it was able very speedily to ensure the work was
done."
Doherty said that this, too, is an important ruling. "The case
also highlights that the courts will consider an employer's
resources when examining whether they have been negligent," he
said.
He awarded general damages of £16,000 plus future loss of
earnings and special damages which are yet to be calculated.
