About 1 in 6 adults has a severe mental health problem and some estimate that 1 in 2 will experience mental ill health during their lives.

More than one million people claim incapacity benefit for mental health problems.

Mental illness costs society £25bn a year, according to Lord Layard.

3 in 10 employees will experience mental health problems during a single year.

80 million: the number of workdays estimated being lost each year to stress, depression and anxiety.

10%: an estimate of the proportion of GDP lost due to work-related stress.

£9bn: an estimated cost per year of salaries to employers not addressing mental health problems in the workplace.

Only about 20% of people with severe mental health problems are employed, compared to 65% of people with physical health problems and 75% for the whole adult population. Even for people with more common types of mental illness, such as depression, only about half are competitively employed.

In a survey of people who were "out" about their mental health problems at work most people found colleagues to be accepting (65%). However, only half said they had had the support they needed and 13% said they seldom or never had it. Some people reported being patronised by management or monitored more closely than other colleagues.

One third of people with mental health problems say that they have been dismissed or forced to resign from their jobs.

40% say that they were denied a job because of their history of psychiatric treatment and about 60% say they have been put off applying for a job as they expect to be dealt with unfairly.

38%: the proportion of employers who say they would not employ someone with a mental illness.

45%: the proportion of employers who think none of their employees would be suffering from a mental health problem.

8 out of 10: the number of company directors who say their company has no formal policy to deal with stress and mental ill-health and only 14% of those that do felt it was effective.

1 in 3: the proportion of employers who think people with a mental illness are less reliable than other employees.

80%: the proportion of employers who agree that more support is required to improve the way businesses deal with mental health in the workplace.

 

A young boy called Louis invented braille nearly 200 years ago in France. His system of embossed type is now used by blind and partially sighted people for reading and writing all over the world. It has been adapted to almost every known language, from Albanian to Zulu.

 

How does it work?
Braille isn't a new language. It is a code which can be used to translate any language into written form for the blind. This means braille is a worldwide standard used in languages all over the world.

Braille uses a system of raised dots which allow people to read by feeling with their fingertips. The braille code is used to represent words and numbers plus other characters such as punctuation, mathematical and scientific symbols, computer languages and music

Source: RNIB

Dhaliwal v Richmond Pharmacology - Employment Appeal Tribunal

The Case

Ms Dhaliwal worked for Richmond Pharmacology as a project manager and gave one month's notice of resignation in August 2007. During her notice period, Ms Dhaliwal's relationship with her manager became strained. He informed her that her work had deteriorated and that she should work out her notice period in a professional way. In this context, he commented that even after Ms Dhaliwal left the company their paths still may cross, saying (words to the effect of ) "we will probably bump into each other in future, unless you are married off in India".

Ms Dhaliwal, who is Indian, was upset by this remark and lodged a grievance against her employer. The grievance was not resolved to her satisfaction and she issued proceedings at the Employment Tribunal claiming harassment on racial grounds. Her former employer argued that the remark did not constitute unlawful racial harassment.

The Decision

The EAT upheld the Tribunal's decision that the comment violated Ms Dhaliwal's dignity and constituted racial harassment. She was awarded £1,000 for injury to feelings.

The EAT advised that in cases such as this, Employment Tribunals should focus on each constituent element of the statutory definition of harassment, to determine:-

 

Was there unwanted conduct?

Was it on the grounds of race or ethnic or national origin?

Was the purpose or effect of that conduct to violate the person's dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment?

If the person felt that their dignity had been violated, was it reasonable to feel this way?

 

Applying these principles, the EAT found that, whilst the remark made to Ms Dhaliwal was not intended to violate her dignity, it had the effect of doing so. It rejected the employer's argument that it could not reasonably be perceived as having that effect. The award of £1000 indicated however that this was a "borderline" harassment case.

It needs to be noted that the victim's perceptions are important in this analysis and that the motive of the perpetrator is not always relevant. The decision is also a useful reminder that an isolated or "one-off" act or remark can give rise to a successful discrimination claim. Employers should ensure that their policies address this risk and are widely communicated to all members of the workforce.

 

The EAT's comments apply to all forms of discrimination:

' While it is very important that employers are sensitive to the hurt which can be caused by racially offensive comments or conduct, it is also important not to encourage a culture of hypersensitivity or the imposition of legal liability in respect of every unfortunate phrase.'  

Source: Bird and Bird/ Gotelee and Goldsmith