Morgan Armstrong, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, sought a fresh start after his service, finding work at HMP Manchester in 2019. He hoped to contribute his skills and experience to a new chapter, but a series of misunderstandings and misinterpretations would ultimately lead to a devastating loss of his job.
His manager, Robert Knight, perceived Armstrong’s demeanor during absences as “blasé,” a lack of concern that seemed out of character. However, an employment judge later recognized this perception failed to account for the invisible wounds of war – the anxiety, depression, and PTSD that profoundly impacted Armstrong’s behavior, particularly when his medication wasn’t fully effective.
Over three years, Armstrong took 39 days of sick leave, initially receiving no disciplinary action. A formal warning was discussed, but a crucial error occurred: he was given a letter stating no formal action would be taken. This initial miscommunication set a troubling precedent for how his case would be handled.
A subsequent promise of a desired role change – a move to “external” duties – turned into another disappointment. Instead, he was assigned to visiting duties, a shift that triggered a significant decline in his mental health and a prolonged period of absence. Medical reports indicated a return to work could take months, dependent on his medication’s full effect.
Armstrong communicated a tentative return date, tied to the expiration of his sick note. Prison authorities, however, misinterpreted this as a declaration of permanent unfitness for duty – a conclusion the tribunal deemed a complete distortion of the medical assessment.
The decision to terminate his employment came swiftly, finalized in a mere two minutes during a December meeting. His appeal was denied without any attempt to understand his potential for return or explore reasonable adjustments to support his needs. The process lacked compassion and disregarded his service.
An employment judge ultimately ruled in Armstrong’s favor, finding the dismissal unfair, discriminatory, and a breach of the Prison Service’s duty to provide reasonable accommodations. The judgment acknowledged the employer’s failure to exercise patience and understanding in his recovery.
Armstrong was awarded £82,067.62 in compensation, encompassing a basic award, compensation for injury to feelings, lost earnings, and accrued interest. The judge emphasized the employer should have allowed more time for his potential return, recognizing the complexities of his condition.
