Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Syt]

Tbf, "you need to focus better" and "you need to organize yourself" or "just write to do lists" is among the least helpful advice you can give an ADHDer - we know

Though if employee hadn't disclosed this, it's obviously more complicated. Not sure if there's a legal obligation for workplace accommodation over there? But I know many people would not disclose for fear of being let go.

[Syt]

Thanks, cc, for reading the article (I just went off the comment ).

[HVC]

Can't seem to open up the article agin (without subscribing) but as I recall the article stated that management wasn't made aware of her doctors medical report diagnosing her of ADHD and that she resigned after being put on a performance improvement plan and claimed constructive dismissal. So yes, my summary is based on what was shared there. Is it possible were relating two different stories?

[HVC]

Tbf, "you need to focus better" and "you need to organize yourself" or "just write to do lists" is among the least helpful advice you can give an ADHDer - we know

Though if employee hadn't disclosed this, it's obviously more complicated. Not sure if there's a legal obligation for workplace accommodation over there? But I know many people would not disclose for fear of being let go.

Also, again based on my recollection of the story, she was going out for massages and Starbucks when she should be reachable (whatever that means, I assumed, perhaps incorrectly that she was begging off) which probably didn't help he organizational skills according to the article it got to the point where customers were complaining to her managers about progress.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Thanks, cc, for reading the article (I just went off the comment ).

Actually, HVC's summary is closer to what the article said than CC's summary of the situation.  The Telegraph article did not state anything about a consultant having been brought in to help with accommodations, and misleadingly suggested (but did not state explicitly) that the company didn't know about her diagnosis.  CC is using information from a more credible source.  As CC indicated, the fault lies with the article.

[HVC]

CC is using information from a more credible source.  As CC indicated, the fault lies with the article.

Entirely possible. Really, I just wanted to make fun of the uk 

[crazy canuck]

Thanks, cc, for reading the article (I just went off the comment ).

Actually, HVC's summary is closer to what the article said than CC's summary of the situation.  The Telegraph article did not state anything about a consultant having been brought in to help with accommodations, and misleadingly suggested (but did not state explicitly) that the company didn't know about her diagnosis.  CC is using information from a more credible source.  As CC indicated, the fault lies with the article.

I think where the reporter went wrong is it is true that at the time of hiring the company did not know about the disability.  That is what one would expect.  The employee asked for accommodations after being hired as a probationary employee, and those accommodations were not granted.

HVC, I'm not sure why you're putting importance on the fact that she was going to Starbucks. That does not outweigh a clear case of a failure to accommodate a disability.

And the thing that got the award of extra damages, to repeat, is the employers complete disregard for the fact that the disability existed and calling her disorganized.


Decision makers don't hand out awards of extra damages for nothing and I'm not sure why the reflex of the general public as demonstrated here is to assume that the decision-maker doesn't know what they're doing.  Another aspect of social media that drives me around the bend.

[HVC]

Decision makers don't hand out awards of extra damages for nothing and I'm not sure why the reflex of the general public as demonstrated here is to assume that the decision-maker doesn't know what they're doing.  Another aspect of social media that drives me around the bend.

Not so in this case, because beyond this article I didn't know about the situation at hand (and in that regard I'll bow to your apparent knowledge of the case) but it's not always that the public believes that the decision makers don't know what they're doing, but that know what they're doing and can still be wrong. That view isn't always valid, of course, but it can be. History is rife with shitty laws, judgement and decisions created, ratified, and enforced by decision makes who know what they're doing.

[Sheilbh]

This is the decision - it's pretty short and the facts are in 2-15:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69381bfde447374889cd8f6b/Ms_Nicole_Hogger_v_Genesis_PR_Ltd_3301581_2024_Reasons.pdf

The claim was for constructive dismissal, but she wasn't terminated. Her resignation which was constructive dismissal came the day after she was told she'd be put on a personal improvement plan.

There were two alleged acts of harassment the being perceived as disorganised comment was one of thm (the PIP was the other).

Having read the facts I'm not totally convinced.

[crazy canuck]

It is short because it is a slam dunk case.  The fact the disability was disclosed is in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

I am beginning to suspect the reason this otherwise unremarkable case is getting any play is because of the misunderstanding of what the reasons are actually saying.

[Sheilbh]

Decision makers don't hand out awards of extra damages for nothing and I'm not sure why the reflex of the general public as demonstrated here is to assume that the decision-maker doesn't know what they're doing.  Another aspect of social media that drives me around the bend.

There's a very significant trans v TERF employment case that's just been decided by the Employment Tribunal. Neither side is happy, both is going to appeal. It has been a case that has had national media attention.

I think it's very difficult to resist an appeal given that the judgement cites authorities but includes quotations that do not exist in those decisions. I'm not 100% sure that at least part of that decision was written with AI, but that seems to me the most plausible explanation for why it is inventing quotations from authorities that exist. That's a decision - from the same tribunal - with national media attention and both parties with plenty of funding to appeal.

There are, I think, a growing number of concerns around what's going on with the Tribunals system because there do seem to be some rather odd decisions coming out of them. That's definitely the case in the Information Tribunal which is the area I know best and has had a few decisions fairly decisively smacked down by the higher courts for betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the law they're applying at first instance.

From my perspective I think there are ample reasons for people to cock an eyebrow at decisions by the Tribunals (I'd extend more respect to the higher courts - High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court). But I think "fools in old style hats and coats" (or wigs and gowns) deserve exactly as much deference as they were given by Peter Cook in his sketch on the summing up in the Jeremy Thorpe trial:

[Sheilbh]

It is short because it is a slam dunk case.  The fact the disability was disclosed is in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Maybe - but most tribunal decisions are short.

Edit: I didn't mean it as a judgement - just to flag as people may want to read it v a 150+ page decision

[HVC]

At the risk of regretting furthering the discussion, I have a legal question. Does the below not count as accommodation?

9 At some point in 2021, possibly when she had yet to be diagnosed with
ADHD or indeed even referred for assessment, the Claimant disclosed to
Ms Straker that she sometimes struggled to prioritise work. It was agreed
that they would meet weekly on a Monday morning to run through the
Claimant's task list, with a view to identifying any workload or deadline
issues that she needed to act upon or required support with. Regardless
of whether this was before or following the Claimant's diagnosis with
ADHD, it evidences to us that Ms Straker was a supportive manager who
wanted the Claimant to succeed.

Law is obviously not my strong suit, but I am curious and would welcome clarification.

[crazy canuck]

At the risk of regretting furthering the discussion, I have a legal question. Does the below not count as accommodation?

9 At some point in 2021, possibly when she had yet to be diagnosed with
ADHD or indeed even referred for assessment, the Claimant disclosed to
Ms Straker that she sometimes struggled to prioritise work. It was agreed
that they would meet weekly on a Monday morning to run through the
Claimant's task list, with a view to identifying any workload or deadline
issues that she needed to act upon or required support with. Regardless
of whether this was before or following the Claimant's diagnosis with
ADHD, it evidences to us that Ms Straker was a supportive manager who
wanted the Claimant to succeed.

Law is obviously not my strong suit, but I am curious and would welcome clarification.

If this is the extent of it, there would have been no case. The damning part came later on after the diagnosis was confirmed.  The employer took more than a year to make any effort to accommodate the disability.

The legal bit here is the onus is on the employer to accommodate.The onus cannot be put on the employee to tell the employer what to do after the disclosure of a disability is made.  This is a textbook example of the onus being put on the employee, which is why I think this was an easy call.