Latest news with #disabilityDiscrimination
The Guardian
21-05-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Sighing at a colleague in frustration could be discriminatory, tribunal rules
Sighing at a colleague at work in frustration could breach equality laws, an employment tribunal has ruled. Nonverbal expressions of disappointment or irritation could amount to discrimination, a judge said. The ruling came in the case of a software engineer with ADHD who successfully sued a tech company for disability discrimination after complaining about his manager's sighing and exaggerated exhales. Robert Watson is now in line for compensation from Roke Manor Research, the inventors of the Hawk-Eye ball tracking system used at Wimbledon, in international cricket and football. The hearing in Southampton was told Watson started working for the company, based in Romsey, Hampshire, as a software engineer in August 2020. The identities of other staff involved in the tribunal were not publicly disclosed after the company raised the issue of national security given the sensitive nature of some of its projects. The tribunal was told that Watson's time keeping was poor, he was easily distracted and he had some difficulties focusing as a result of his ADHD, which was not diagnosed until November 2022. Watson began taking medication after his diagnosis and took four days off sick. When he returned to work, the technical lead of one of the projects he was working on, referred to as DT by the tribunal, told him that he had to do several days' worth of additional work partly because of this absence. Over the next weeks DT continued to criticise him. '[Watson] alleges that DT questioned [his] hours of work and his patterns of work and the time he spent at his project desk and that he expressed nonverbal frustration such as sighing and exaggerating exhales,' the summary of evidence said. Watson went off sick with work related stress from February 2023 and never returned. He filed his claim for disability discrimination in May 2023 and was sacked in January 2024. DT's behaviour towards him was found to be discriminatory by the tribunal. The employment judge at the tribunal, Catherine Rayner, said: 'I conclude the reason for the expressions of frustration arose from things which themselves arose from [Watson]'s disability such as his time keeping and working patterns and the fact that he was spending time away from his project desk. 'Had [Roke Manor Research] taken steps to identify adjustments required for [Mr Watson] at an earlier stage and provided both him and the project lead with necessary support it is entirely possible that DT would not have himself suffered with such work pressure and it is possible therefore that this discrimination would have been avoided.' Other claims Watson made relating to disability discrimination and a claim of unfair dismissal failed. His compensation will be decided at a later date.
Daily Mail
21-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Sighing at a work colleague in frustration is harassment: Software engineer successfully sues tech firm for discrimination over manager's 'exaggerated exhales' that left him anxious
Sighing in frustration at a co-worker can now be classed as harassment, a judge has ruled in a landmark employment tribunal. Robert Watson broke down in tears after his manager repeatedly sighed and made 'exaggerated exhales', which the tribunal ruled amounted to disability discrimination. The tribunal, held in Southampton heard that Mr Watson worked for Roke Manor Research, the company behind Hawk-Eye, the cutting-edge ball tracking system used at Wimbledon, in international cricket and top-level football. He joined the firm in August 2020 as a software engineer, but struggled with poor timekeeping, difficulty focusing and distraction - symptoms later linked to his ADHD, which wasn't diagnosed until November 2022. After returning from four days off sick following his diagnosis, Mr Watson was confronted by a project leader, referred to only as DT due to national security concerns around the firm's defence projects. 'Something's got to change,' DT told him - prompting Mr Watson to burst into tears. The tribunal was told DT then continued to question Mr Watson's hours, his time at his desk and his work output - all while visibly showing frustration. '[Mr Watson] alleges that DT questioned [his] hours of work and his patterns of work and the time he spent at his project desk and that he expressed nonverbal frustration such as sighing and exaggerating exhales,' the tribunal heard. 'He said that over the next few weeks, DT made comments which made him feel anxious, questioned his working hours and patterns and [expressed] nonverbal frustration which he did not see him expressing towards anyone else in the team.' The judge accepted the effect this behaviour had on Mr Watson's mental health. 'Reactions from others verbally or as a gesture, can [have] a damning effect on his self-esteem and anxiety,' the tribunal noted. In one particularly upsetting meeting in December, DT reportedly told him he was becoming a 'net detriment' and even joked about his condition: 'putting your ADHD aside for a moment'. Mr Watson went off sick with stress in February 2023 and never returned. He filed his tribunal claim in May and was officially dismissed in January this year. Employment Judge Catherine Rayner ruled that the sighs and gestures amounted to unlawful discrimination linked to Mr Watson's condition. 'I conclude the reason for the expressions of frustration arose from things which themselves arose from [Mr Watson]'s disability such as his time keeping and working patterns and the fact that he was spending time away from his project desk,' she said. 'I accept that for DT there was a genuine source of pressure and frustration, and that the reason for that frustration was that in the autumn of 2022 [Mr Watson] was not able to fully contribute to the project work and that this had a knock-on impact on DT who was expected to pick up any slack. 'Whilst this does not excuse DT's behaviour or treatment of [Mr Watson], it does explain it. 'Had [Roke Manor Research] taken steps to identify adjustments required for [Mr Watson] at an earlier stage and provided both him and the project lead with necessary support it is entirely possible that DT would not have himself suffered with such work pressure and it is possible therefore that this discrimination would have been avoided.' While other claims of unfair dismissal and additional discrimination were dismissed, the ruling paves the way for Mr Watson to receive compensation with the amount to be decided at a later hearing.
Daily Mail
08-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Charity director who claimed 'menopause madness' caused her poor performance at work loses disability discrimination claim
A charity director has lost her case for disability discrimination after blaming poor performance at work on ' menopause madness'. Deborah Sangster claimed her failure to hand in reports on time and attend meetings were due to symptoms causing 'low mood, irritability and night sweats', an employment tribunal in south London heard. Concerns were repeatedly raised about how she carried out duties in the two years she worked for StopWatch, which campaigns against police stop and search policies. She went on to resign before being sacked after her failure to provide regular reports to funders risked the charity losing vital income, the tribunal was told. Ms Sangster said she had been discriminated against and was 'suffering significant challenges with my mental health provoked by my menopause'. But the tribunal found the charity's criticisms of her over her failings at work had nothing to do with the condition. Indeed, it found StopWatch - based in Vauxhall, south London - had 'bent over backwards' to accommodate and support Ms Sangster while she showed 'no appreciation' for what they had done. The hearing, held in Croydon in south London, was told that Ms Sangster began working for StopWatch UK in June 2021 as an executive director. StopWatch, founded in 2010, aims to promote 'fair, effective and accountable policing', with a particular focus on stop and search policies. Ms Sangster's role involved financial management and reporting as well as fundraising applications to support the volunteer trustees. The tribunal heard that from the start of her employment there were issues with Ms Sangster who was described as 'difficult to contact', did not turn up for meetings and missed reporting deadlines including to the organisation that funded her role. In January 2022, Ms Sangster had a probation review in which she was told to improve her time management. Concerns about her fundraising work were also raised, including over an expression of interest form for a grant which was submitted six months late. Despite these concerns, the tribunal found the charity had provided Ms Sangster with 'every chance of success' because they did not want to let her go. In June 2022, the day before a trustee meeting, Ms Sangster asked to take a week off to 'gather her energy' because of issues in her personal life. The trustees suggested she take her leave after the meeting to provide her handover, but she did not attend and it was cancelled. After the aborted meeting, one trustee sent an email to the others explaining the situation and raising further concerns about Ms Sangster's performance - including a suggestion that her projects were 'ill-conceived and poorly executed'. Ms Sangster was offered a month of paid leave during which time she saw a menopause specialist and was prescribed HRT to manage her low mood, brain fog, poor memory and night sweats. On her phased return to work at the start of September she agreed, at the time, to a co-director plan with the employee who had been covering in her absence - halving her workload. She emailed one of the trustees the following month to thank them for their support through what she called her 'menopause madness'. Ms Sangster also discussed some of her physical symptoms but made no mention of mental health issues under which she would later claim disability discrimination. In January 2023 one of the trustees, who was also a long-standing friend of Ms Sangster, spoke to her about the performance concerns that were going to be raised at an upcoming meeting and told her 'all options were available' regarding her employment. At the meeting where continued concerns over her meeting attendance and funding reports were raised, Ms Sangster explained she felt overwhelmed and was only operating at '70 per cent' of her former self. The tribunal heard that one key report that Ms Sangster failed to deliver on time was for the Charity Commission. At the end of January, she raised a grievance on the basis she was being treated poorly because of her disability, sex and age. Ms Sangster told the tribunal that, in her view, once she made this formal complaint things became 'incredibly difficult' at work. At the end of the grievance process, Ms Sangster was told that the charity did not accept that her menopause symptoms qualified as a disability but they would still continue to make reasonable adjustments. In April, she was invited to a contractual review meeting because of 'serious concerns' about her performance - especially concerning her failure to report to a key funder. Later that month, whilst the review process was ongoing, Ms Sangster resigned - claiming the conditions had become 'unbearable'. The tribunal found she had never tried to link her failure to submit a report to her mental health and that StopWatch had 'bent over backwards' to support her and that even when her role was halved she could not complete her duties. Employment Judge Helen Rice-Birchall said Ms Sangster showed 'no appreciation' for what the charity had done for her. She said: 'At no point did [Ms Sangster] ever say to [StopWatch] that she was unable to submit a specific of her alleged disability. 'She was vague and unspecific and did not link her ill health to her failings in a way that [they] could contemplate that her failings were down to her alleged disability. 'However, [StopWatch] bent over backwards to support her, reducing her role by half, and yet [she] still did not perform or even properly communicate with [them] to explain why reports were late and so on despite numerous opportunities to do so. '[Ms Sangster] showed no appreciation for what they had done for her, seeking in this tribunal to complain that her role had been split, even though she could not perform the half which remained. 'In her evidence the claimant appeared to criticise [another executive] for effectively being pedantic in his management of the accounts. 'The Tribunal concludes that [he] probably did have a sense of frustration with [her] attitude to finance, not least because her chaotic and disorganised approach meant that [StopWatch's] financial compliance, in a highly regulated sector, was at risk. 'Her approach meant that she would or could not take on more responsibility as budget holder which was what was expected of her. There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this was because of any menopause related ill-health.' Ms Sangster lost her claims for disability, age, and sex discrimination, disability harassment and victimisation. She was also ordered to pay £1,750 after being found to have acted 'vexatiously' during the tribunal process.
