We have had a grievance raised by an autistic employee, as one of their colleagues called them a “ a bit special” in a meeting. I’m not sure how to manage this grievance as don’t know a great deal about autism.
Autism is a complex area, and it might be best to leave this grievance to the HR professionals like us.
A recent employment tribunal has ruled that calling an autistic employee a “weirdo” in a workplace meeting was a discriminatory act that violated his dignity and contributed to an unlawful pattern of disability discrimination and harassment, and the comment made by one of your employees, could be considered similar.
Mr Nicholas James, who was employed by The Venture (Wrexham) Ltd, a children’s play charity, won multiple claims of disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unauthorised deductions from wages.
He was awarded over £17,000 in compensation after the tribunal found that his employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for his sensory needs, including inappropriately using the term “weirdo” in a staff meeting.
Disability-related harassment and discrimination
James, who has Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC) and anxiety, worked in both the charity’s Inclusion Project and its Open Access Playworker role. The tribunal heard that while his employer had initially agreed to reasonable adjustments, such as limiting background music and using softer lighting, these were not consistently implemented.
Among several incidents cited in the judgment, one meeting on 9 November 2023 featured a remark by Chief Officer Malcolm King, who said: “Why can’t you be ordinary and perfect like the rest of us? Jokes aside, having always been something of a weirdo myself, I have some sympathy…” The tribunal found that this comment “had the effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity” and, when viewed alongside other failures, amounted to unlawful harassment related to disability.
The tribunal noted that while some of the employer’s comments may have been intended to be light-hearted, in context they were dismissive of the claimant’s condition. It ruled that King’s statement could reasonably be viewed as hostile and diminishing of the claimant’s difficulties, particularly as it was made in a formal meeting about reasonable adjustments.
Failure to uphold reasonable adjustments
Despite assurances that accommodations would be made, James encountered repeated failures to respect his sensory needs. Music was played during open access sessions and public events, and tools were used during his shifts without notice, both of which caused him stress due to sensory sensitivities.
He was also forced to leave public-facing events when music was turned on, exacerbating his anxiety.
The tribunal said that the charity “did not take such steps as were reasonable” to avoid these disadvantages, such as simply ensuring music was not played during his working hours or providing alternative lighting arrangements. The judge concluded that these were breaches of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Victimisation and wage deductions
After James raised a formal grievance in December 2023, he was removed from his open access role and not paid for those shifts from January 2024 onwards. The tribunal found this amounted to victimisation and an unauthorised deduction of wages.
While the charity argued that it had safeguarding concerns, partly based on James’s disclosure that the working environment had once made him feel suicidal, the tribunal said this did not justify the failure to support his return or remove him from his role without proper process. It noted that James had worked more than 100 sessions and had expressed a clear willingness to remain in the role with the right support.
The tribunal ordered The Venture (Wrexham) Limited to pay James £15,000 for injury to feelings, £1,209.86 in interest, and £945 in unpaid wages. It also recommended reinstating him to his former roles and paying backdated wages and pension contributions from 16 February 2024
In summary
As you can see this is a complex area, and can be costly if you get these things wrong. Therefore, we would suggest that an HR professional investigate this grievance for you, who will write up a full investigation report with their recommendations on how to address/resolve the issue/s, which are then implemented and followed in full.
