2 days ago
Calling a colleague ‘weirdo' could be discrimination
Calling a colleague a 'weirdo' could be discrimination, a tribunal has ruled.
Using the term, even if you are trying to put someone at ease, may 'violate their dignity' and breach equality laws, a judge has said.
The ruling came in the case of Nicholas James, an autistic children's centre worker, who complained that he could not work with background music.
Malcolm King, Mr James's boss, asked him: 'Why can't you be ordinary and perfect like the rest of us?' before referring to him as a 'weirdo', the tribunal heard.
Mr King described Mr James's requested work adjustments as 'a pain in the arse', and likened the effect of Mr James's autism disorder on his work to having a hangover after a 'good booze-up'.
The worker has now won more than £17,000 in compensation for disability discrimination and harassment.
Comments 'violated his dignity'
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.'
Requested no background music
The hearing in Cardiff was told that Mr James had been working for The Venture, which provides community-based services for young people, in Wrexham since 2021.
He was employed as a project worker on its inclusion project which provided play work for children with neurodevelopmental conditions, primarily autism.
He later began working at events at which music was played on the radio, referred to as 'open access sessions' because they were open to the public.
However, the tribunal heard he could not work with music playing in the background because this impacted his ability 'to concentrate on other matters'. It was not played while he worked at these sessions, but it continued to be played at public events that Venture held a few times a year.
Mr King told him that to stop music being played at these events would be 'quite wrong' as the events needed to be 'enjoyable' for guests.
Mr James reportedly felt 'continually disregarded because of his condition', 'accused of wanting to spoil children's fun' and 'not able to do his job'.
Compensation for discrimination
In November, another meeting took place between Mr James and several more senior employees at the company.
The tribunal heard: '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 the open access sessions and was later suspended from his role at the organisation because of concerns regarding his work and an alleged failure to report an incident. He then sued for discrimination.
His employers have been ordered to pay him £17,154.86 in total, including £15,000 for injury to feelings. His other claims failed.
