When is enough enough? A steer from Jersey's Royal Court on reasonable adjustments

When an employee is absent from work with stress for a prolonged period, how long does an employer need to keep trying?

That is rarely an easy question. Getting it wrong can expose an employer to a discrimination claim, while getting it right can still feel uncomfortable when the employee is genuinely struggling.

A recently published judgment of Jersey’s Royal Court provides a useful steer: reasonableness has a limit. An employer does not necessarily have to try every conceivable adjustment before reaching a fair decision to dismiss. There can come a point where enough has been done.

But where that point sits will depend on the circumstances.

It is not simply a case of saying, “We offered this and they turned it down, so they are being unreasonable.” What is reasonable for a large employer, with an HR team and a range of roles available for redeployment, may look very different from what is reasonable for a smaller organisation with fewer options.

The judgment also highlights the importance of listening to what the employee says might help, rather than simply assuming that the employer knows best.

A useful point about disability

The Royal Court also confirmed that a long period of stress-related absence does not, in and of itself, mean that an employee is disabled for the purposes of discrimination law.

That is an important reminder for employers. The length of an absence may be relevant, but it is not determinative. The legal definition of disability still needs to be considered on the particular facts.

What happened in Murphy?

The case concerned an employee who had been absent with stress for many months.
Her employer had investigated her complaints on two occasions, arranged an occupational health assessment and offered her an alternative role. She declined the role without seeking further information, while continuing to raise new complaints about how her earlier complaints had been handled.

Ultimately, the employer decided that it had reached the point where it could not reasonably be expected to do more.

The Royal Court upheld that decision.

The importance of the paper trail

One of the things that particularly struck me about the judgment was the extent to which the employer's case was supported by what had been recorded along the way.

There was evidence of:

• two investigations;
• an occupational health assessment;
• the alternative role that had been offered;
• the employee's decision to decline it; and
• the employer's attempts to address the issues raised.

That evidence enabled the Royal Court to conclude that the employer's judgment deserved respect.

The lesson for employers is not simply “keep good records”. It is that the records should demonstrate the decision-making process.

They should show that concerns have been properly considered, appropriate advice has been taken, alternatives have genuinely been explored and the employee has been listened to.

And, importantly, they should record why the employer considers that the options available have been exhausted.

So, when is enough enough?

There is no fixed point at which an employer can say, “We have now done enough.”

The management judgment is knowing when to:

Keep trying → Try something different → Recognise that enough really is enough

Murphy provides a useful reminder that an employer is not required to pursue reasonable adjustments indefinitely. But it also demonstrates why reaching that point needs to be based on a careful, evidence-based assessment of the individual circumstances.

States Employment Board v Murphy [2026] JRC 131