Mr. M.J Taplin v Freeths LLP — 2021

Mr Taplin joined Freeths LLP in 1999, became an ordinary member in 2004 and managing partner of the Derby office in 2008. The tribunal accepted that from November 2016 he had an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and that Freeths knew of the disability. It found that he was a very successful and high-billing solicitor, but that by late 2016 his mental health was deteriorating and affecting his workload, decision-making, and interpersonal style.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the respondent did take some supportive steps, including coaching, encouraging time off, phased returns and funding Dr Laher. Even so, it held that the respondent should have put in place a clearer written return-to-work plan, a WRAP or equivalent, a designated mentor, clearer expectations about billing and workload, and better management of out-of-hours email use and work allocation. It rejected the claims that he should simply have retained the managing partner title without its duties, and that he was required to bill as many hours as possible. Where needed, it extended time on a just and equitable basis for older failures.

After the 14 June 2018 conference presentation, the tribunal found that Mr Taplin's judgment had been affected by his condition and medication, and that the offensive presentation arose from that impaired state. It held that Mr Flanagan unlawfully steered the first sub-committee toward suspension while withholding relevant medical information and failing to disclose the reports from Dr Laher. On that basis, the suspension and referral into the formal process amounted to direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability. It did not find the disciplinary outcome itself to be directly discriminatory or unfavourable treatment because of disability.

On the disciplinary process, the tribunal held that a formal process was justified for serious misconduct, but the way it was managed was not always fair or sensitive. It found that more open and supportive communication should have been used, and that some of the proposed adjustments during the process, particularly around clearer explanation of the suspension and more sensitive handling, should have been made. It rejected the expulsion argument under sections 45 and 46, holding that there was no expulsion within the meaning of the statute on these facts.

On annual leave, the tribunal upheld only the part of the Working Time Regulations claim relating to untaken basic leave accrued while Mr Taplin was a salaried partner before 2004, because Freeths produced no evidence of any system then for encouraging or requiring leave to be taken. It dismissed the claim for additional leave under regulation 13A, and it dismissed the member-period EU leave claim because Mr Taplin was a co-owner with autonomy who knowingly did not take leave once he understood the consequences. Remedy was left to a later hearing.