Cheltenham Borough Council loses 'deceit' case

Laird was hired in 2002, but left in 2005 on full pay citing ill-health brought on by stress. The council claimed Laird had deceived the council by not fully informing it of her previous history of depressive illness. Andrew North, Cheltenham's current CEO said: "Had the council known Mrs Laird's medical history, it would most probably not employed her and incurred the costs it has." The council was suing Laird for £1million.

Cheltenham Borough Council now has seven days to decide whether to appeal against the verdict.
 
In the High Court Mr Justice Hamblen rejected the council's plea that Laird had "misrepresented and misstated her fitness for employment" on her application form. Instead he accepted Laird had given accurate information about her past.
 
Huw Rolant Jones, partner at international law firm Eversheds said: "It is not uncommon for employers to take disciplinary action against employees if they discover employees who have been less than truthful or outright dishonest in any applications, often leading to dismissals. But employers have to be mindful that in so doing they do not commit an act of unlawful discrimination against the employee, particularly where sickness and disabilities are in issue."
 
Mark Brown, editor of mental health magazine, One in Four, said the case "speaks of a dilemma faced by people with mental health difficulties - do I tell or not."
 
The Employer's Forum on Disability (EFD) says mental health should be treated as a disability rather than an illness, in which case it can be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act.
 
EFD's legal director, Bella Gor, said: "Cheltenham was going down the fraud route, but the courts would have had difficulty on discrimination grounds, so we welcome the decision. Had Cheltenham won we think it would have backfired, as even fewer people would be likely to disclose their medical history. But our stance is also this: why are these questions being asked in the first place? There is no need for an employer to know about previous conditions that may have happened in the past. They should only be allowed to ask questions necessary for the role being applied."