AN advocacy worker who was hospitalised with sepsis has lost her claims of disability discrimination and constructive dismissal against her former employer after a tribunal found key parts of her evidence were not credible.
Bryony Mitchell worked for Jersey Cares, a non-profit organisation which advocates for people with care experience, from March 2024 until she resigned with immediate effect in October 2025 following a period of illness.
The Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal found that the advocacy worker had “misrepresented some facts and quoted selectively from emails and messages”, while describing the evidence of Jersey Cares as “credible” and consistent with contemporaneous documents.
Ms Mitchell claimed she was subjected to “inappropriate” work contact while hospitalised with sepsis, discriminated against because of her disability, and forced to resign.
However, the tribunal concluded that Jersey Cares chief executive Susie Richardson had repeatedly made clear there was “no pressure” for Ms Mitchell to engage with work while she was off sick.
It found messages between the pair were supportive and noted that Ms Mitchell herself had initiated discussions about her future role and asked for information about her contract.
One allegation centred on Ms Richardson inviting Ms Mitchell to join online training “if you are bored”. The tribunal found this was simply an optional invitation made alongside assurances there was “no pressure at all”.
The tribunal also rejected Ms Mitchell’s claim that Jersey Cares failed to make reasonable adjustments. It ruled that preventing her from working for three days while awaiting clinical advice was a one-off decision rather than a workplace policy, and that she suffered no substantial disadvantage because the charity ensured she remained on full pay.
In dismissing the constructive dismissal claim, the panel rejected each complaint relied upon by Ms Mitchell, including allegations about delayed occupational health arrangements, uncertainty over her role and pay, and a Facebook recruitment advert she believed was for her replacement.
The tribunal found the advert was actually for a different advocacy role to replace another departing employee and said there was “nothing in the advert to suggest” that Jersey Cares was recruiting to replace Ms Mitchell.
The panel concluded: “We have found that none of the acts complained about by Ms Mitchell were significant enough to form part of a course of conduct entitling her to resign.”
It added that, even if it were wrong on that point, the alleged “final straws” relied upon by Ms Mitchell were “trivial”, meaning her constructive dismissal claim would still fail. All claims were dismissed.
