Intel negligent in causing depression illness

Intel negligent in causing depression to overworked employee-offer of counselling could not save employer in light of serious management failings

In Intel (UK) Ltd v Tracy Ann Daw Intel appealed against an earlier decision that it had been negligent in failing to obviate a risk of its employee suffering chronic stress induced depression caused by overwork.

Daw had been employed by Intel for about 13 years before she suffered the breakdown in June 2001 and became unable to work.

Originally a finance assistant she had had two periods off work as a result of post natal-depression.

After the birth of her second child she returned to work as a payroll analyst.

Her job was sensitive and complex and shortly after the move there was a reorganisation that increased her workload and the number of managers to whom she had to report.

Some of her managers were unaware of her post-natal depression.

Daw made fourteen representations to various managers over inadequate resources to deal with the workload and the excessive hours she was now expected to work.

At trial Daw was found by the judge to be loyal, able, committed and conscientious and that the stress resulted from confused reporting lines and because of insufficient support in her job.

The injury that resulted was entirely foreseeable and damages were awarded of £134,000.

At the appeal Intel argued that the post-natal depression did not provide it with enough concerns to consider possible stress related depression could arise. The court was not convinced and rejected Intel’s arguments finding Daw’s stress and ill-health had been caused by a failure of management and that the injury had been foreseeable enough to require immediate action.

Intel gave her unfulfilled assurances that remedial action would be taken-a case of false promises and false hope that led Daw to continue in her employment despite the misgivings she had.

Since she had complained and had sought managerial support she could not be blamed for failing to use the internal counselling services.

The provision of such services as per Sutherland v Hatton was not a “get out of jail card” by which employers could discharge their duty of care in all cases.

Here the consequences of management failings were not alleviated by the offer to provide such counselling services since the only way to deal properly with the cause of the stress at hand would have been management to reduce her workload.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.