Calling a colleague a 'weirdo' is discrimination as it may 'violate their dignity', tribunal rules

Daily Mail​

2 days ago

Calling a colleague a 'weirdo' is discrimination and could allow them to claim thousands of pounds compensation, a tribunal has ruled.
An autistic children's centre staff member who complained he couldn't work with background music was asked in jest why he couldn't be 'ordinary and perfect like the rest of us'.
His boss, Malcolm King, also compared the worker's disorder to having a hangover after a 'good booze up' and said the requests he made to him at work were a 'pain in the arse'.
Employee Nicholas James has now won more than £17,000 in compensation for disability discrimination and harassment.
Employment Judge Stephen Jenkins said: 'We considered that the references to accommodating [Mr James]'s requests as being a "pain in the arse", to questioning why [Mr James] could not be "ordinary like the rest of us", and to [Mr James] being a "weirdo"...would clearly have been unwanted to [Mr James].
'[Mr James] himself clearly perceived the comments as violating his dignity, and we considered that, objectively, it was reasonable to conclude that the words had the effect of violating [Mr James]'s dignity.
'They were comments from...the most senior person within the executive structure of the organisation, and were comments which Mr King himself has, on reflection, agreed were inappropriate.
'In the circumstances, we were satisfied that the comments did involve unwanted conduct which had the effect of violating [Mr James]'s dignity.'
The hearing in Cardiff was told Mr James worked for The Venture - an organisation which provides community-based services mainly for young people - in Wrexham from July 2021.
He was employed as a project worker on their inclusion project which provided play work for children with neurodevelopmental conditions, primarily autism.
Mr James later began working at 'open access' sessions, which were open to the public with music played through a radio.
However, the tribunal heard he could not work with the music playing in the background, because this impacted his 'ability to concentrate on other matters'.
It was therefore not played while he worked at these sessions, but it continued to be played at public events Venture held a few times a year.
Chief Officer Mr King told Mr James that to stop music being played at these events would be 'quite wrong' as they needed to be 'enjoyable' for guests.
'[Mr James] noted that he felt that he was continually disregarded because of his condition, and that he felt accused of wanting to spoil children's fun and that he was not able to do his job,' the tribunal heard.
In November, another meeting took place between Mr James and several more senior employees at the company.
'After some opening comments which were complimentary about [Mr James]'s qualities as a play worker, Mr King noted that for him, at the heart of it, they needed [Mr James]'s gifts and they needed to find ways of making that work, "even though it's a pain in the arse".
'He followed that with what [Mr James] described as an ill-timed joke saying, "Why can't you be ordinary and perfect like the rest of us? But no, jokes aside, having always been something of a weirdo myself, I have some sympathy".'
Mr James was subsequently removed from his role at open access sessions.
At a meeting in February 2024, Mr King raised the issue of safeguarding for Mr James and the children he worked with.
The tribunal heard: 'He compared the need to be alert to the children's needs to staff attending work the morning after a night out saying, "So that if staff come to work on a Sunday and they've been out till late on a Saturday night, having a good booze up and they turn up on the playground on a Sunday to do a Sunday shift and they're not really in great shape to be able to pick up on those things".'
Mr James was later suspended from his role because of 'an issue of concern regarding [his] work and an alleged failure to report an incident'. He then sued for discrimination.
The tribunal found that The Venture's decision to to remove Mr James from the open access sessions was not 'appropriate'.
The judge said the 'reference to the impact on [Mr James]'s ability to work due to potential mental health issues, and the comparison of that with someone being impacted by a "good booze up" was unwanted conduct'.
EJ Jenkins said: 'The discussion involved [sic] around Mr King's own concerns that the Claimant's work and care for children would be impacted by his mental health situation, and we felt that that concern was trivialised by Mr King's comparison of that with someone attending work suffering with a hangover.
'We were again therefore satisfied that this comment did have the effect of violating [Mr James]'s dignity.'
Mr James's claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded in part. His complaints of victimisation and unauthorised deductions from wages were successful. His other claims failed.
Mr James' employers have been ordered to pay him him £17,154.86 in total including £15,000 for injury to feelings.