My Employee Raised Mental Health Mid-Process. Do I Have to Stop?

 An employee stops you mid-process and says they can't continue because of their mental health. Do you stop everything? Keep going? And what does the law actually require you to do? Most employers freeze. And that is exactly where things go wrong. This episode breaks down three cases that answer this question for good, including the same employer and the same employee, four years apart, one loss and one win. The facts between those two cases were just as serious. What changed was what the employer did next. You will hear what the Employment Court actually found in FGH v RST, why the employer lost in 2018 and won in 2022 with the same employee. Also why a recent 2026 ERA determination involving the University of Waikato confirms the same principles when an employee raised mental health during a disciplinary meeting.  Join Sanam as she covers the two questions that decide it every time and why an employee raising a concern is not automatically enough to require you to stop. Plus the exact steps you need to take to protect your process when mental health comes up are all covered in this episode. If you are an employer, HR professional, or people leader who has ever thought "the employee has raised something but I am not sure whether I need to pause", this is the episode that gives you the answer. Because getting this wrong does not just cost you the process. It can cost you with a personal grievance. Need training that's different, but sticks? The situations covered in this episode, the grey areas, the judgement calls, the moments where you are not sure whether to push on or pause, are exactly what On The Front Foot is built for. It is a workshop for managers and people leaders who need to know what to say and what not to say before they are in the room. Out Of The Grey covers the same territory for HR teams already dealing with the curlier end of employment law. More info at lawlenz.co.nz. Cases and legislation mentioned: FGH v RST [2018] NZEmpC 60 - the 2018 loss FGH v RST [2022] NZEmpC 223 - the 2022 win, same parties FGH v RST [2023] NZCA 204 - Court of Appeal leave to appeal declined Hassan v University of Waikato [2026] NZERA 486 - 2026 ERA determination Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 - the test of justification Further reading: Hesketh Henry - FGH v RST the Sequel: Navigating mental health in employment processes - the article that breaks down both FGH cases and what they mean for employers Harkness Henry - Mental health, employee conduct and performance: can it be managed? - covers both FGH cases with practical guidance Check out the Law Lenz website lawlenz.co.nz Want to book a workshop? Book a Clarity Call HERE! Don't miss our updates and legal insights! Sign up to the Law Lenz Newsletter! CLICK HERE! Follow Sanam on LinkedIn for key employment law updates. Got questions? Email them to [email protected] Disclaimer: The content presented in this episode is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. The host does not assume any liability for actions taken based on the content of this podcast. While the host is a lawyer, they are not your lawyer and the information provided is based on general legal information. This podcast does not create a solicitor-client relationship.While we strive to keep the information accurate and up-to-date as at the date of each episode, laws and regulations may change, and the content of this podcast may not reflect the most current legal standards or interpretations. Listeners are encouraged to consult with a qualified New Zealand legal professional for advice tailored to their specific situation.