British Airways flight attendant wins unfair dismissal case over anxiety disorder

A British Airways (BA) flight stewardess who was dismissed after becoming too anxious to fly has won an unfair dismissal claim at an employment tribunal.

Jennifer Clifford had been a BA airhostess for nearly 40 years before the Covid pandemic struck, and she was placed on furlough and sick leave. 

She developed symptoms of stress and anxiety during this time and was declared unfit to fly, as the employment tribunal heard.

Ms Clifford was temporarily transferred to a ground role but was still unable to fly by the end of 2022, when she was dismissed.

She sued BA, claiming that a manager had “minimized” the extent of her condition after he downplayed it as “just a little bit of anxiety.”

Nigel Landy, her manager, also reportedly said, “if you don’t like working here then leave.”

Ms Clifford is now eligible for compensation after the tribunal found that the airline should have taken into account her long history with the company and adjusted to her needs.

Ms Clifford began working for BA in 1983 as a member of the cabin crew, the tribunal in Reading heard, rising to the position of flight manager by 2020.

But in August 2020, she was informed that she would be made redundant. 

BA later revoked her redundancy and offered her a cabin crew role, two grades below her previous rank, which she was not happy about.

Ms Clifford stayed on furlough until September 2021 before going on sick leave.

She also proposed a phased return from London Gatwick Airport, instead of her usual base at Heathrow.

In September 2022, she was told that if she did not make herself fit to fly then – then her contract would be terminated in March 2023.

Taking action against BA, Ms Clifford made claims of disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfair dismissal.

Ms Clifford also made an additional claim of sex discrimination, which was dismissed.

Upholding the rest of her claims, Employment Judge Emma Hawksworth ruled: “Ms Clifford needed a phased return in a ground duties placement before returning to her full contractual flying role.

“That was because of the need to rebuild her confidence and to give time to adjust to working again, and these requirements arose from her disability.”

She added that the manager’s comments about her anxiety were “clumsy and suggested to [Ms Clifford] that he was minimising her condition”.

“A reasonable employer would have given her a longer and more suitable phased return ... and would, in line with its policy, have considered redeployment to a ground-based role before deciding to dismiss her,” the judge added.

Ms Clifford’s compensation payment will be decided at a later date.