Paterson started in his role at Amazon as a capacity planner in outsourcing on 5 July 2021, having worked in outsourcing, in various roles, for 20 years. He did not inform Amazon that he had any medical conditions when he commenced employment with them, but had experienced symptoms of social anxiety since he was a child and of general anxiety from at least 2007. In 2019 he was hospitalised for a short period, which was attributed to his bipolar disorder; this was not formally diagnosed at the time.
He was formally assigned to the Edinburgh office; however, at that stage employees were permitted to continue working from home, following the pandemic. Paterson’s manager, Sasha Horn, was based in Berlin.
Paterson first met Horn at an in-person meeting in Edinburgh in October 2022, and participated in a number of team-building exercises over a couple of days. Following this, during their weekly one-to-one meetings, Horn regularly raised performance concerns with Paterson. Further, throughout November and December, Horn raised with the HR team that he had concerns about the claimant’s performance, which he had been discussing with him.
HR advised Horn to follow Amazon’s guidance for managers when dealing, informally, with performance issues. This involved Horn providing information to HR in relation to the concerns he had regarding the claimant’s performance, and how he intended to seek to address them informally with the claimant, which he did.
On 19 January 2023, Horn raised concerns again. During the meeting, Paterson indicated that he had a desire to improve, and recognised that his performance had been declining.
By 7 March, however, Horn felt there had been insufficient improvement and, as a result, the claimant was informed that he could either take a settlement offer and leave the respondent’s employment, or he would be moved on to a formal performance improvement plan. He had by 17 March to respond, but he went off sick a result of anxiety from 13 March, stating: “I do ask that I am now given four weeks to focus solely on recovery.”
On 21 March, Paterson lodged a grievance with Horn and disclosed that he suffered from anxiety and had previously been hospitalised with bipolar. His grievance related to the performance improvement plan and “a failure to make reasonable adjustments”.
He stated that the respondent had failed to or avoided discussing an “obvious mental impairment” and highlighted that the duty arose where an employer knew or “could reasonably be expected to know” someone is disabled.
Paterson was due to return to work on 12 April but on that date emailed saying he had been certified as unfit for work for a further four weeks because of new medication.
HR business partner Catherine Mahony made contact with Paterson and they had a call to discuss an occupational health referral. An appointment was scheduled for 18 May; however, Paterson did not attend, emailing Mahony to say he was having internet issues and would need to reschedule to another day. He requested that it take place the following week. This request was lodged.
On 22 May, the claimant sent an email to Mahony stating that his medication was impacting him in the morning, so requested that the OH assessment take place after 3pm. No request for the claimant’s appointment to take place in the afternoon was passed on. On 26 May the claimant was informed that an OH appointment had been made for him and would take place on 7 June at 8.45am, by telephone. He attended that appointment and a report was provided to the respondent later that day.
The respondent was informed that Paterson was experiencing severe depression and severe anxiety. It referenced him having social anxiety. Meanwhile, a grievance hearing was arranged for 8 June, and Paterson was reassured that both strands of his grievance would be investigated.
He had been due to return to work on 1 August, as per occupational health’s recommendation; however, he informed his employer that he did not see himself returning to work in the “foreseeable future”. Horn stated that he would set up to bi-weekly calls to discuss the claimant’s wellbeing and the adjustments required for him to return to work. Invites were then sent for those discussions, but Paterson did not attend any of them.
On 19 June 2023, Paterson contacted Mahony telling her he was “considering his options” and repeatedly referenced the potential of raising legal proceedings for constructive dismissal, disability discrimination and harassment. On 6 July, he emailed intimating his resignation, with immediate effect. He stated he intended to proceed with tribunal proceedings, and his employment terminated that day.
He did not receive any acknowledgement of his resignation, and raised tribunal proceedings on 9 July. The grievance outcome was sent to the claimant on 11 August; his grievance was not upheld. He was diagnosed formally with bipolar disorder in November 2023.
