Being Told Your Work is “Messy” is Not a Sign of Discrimination

In Mr Thomas Shevlin v John Wiley and Sons Limited, a senior HR operations manager lost his claims of unlawful discrimination related to disability and workplace harassment. This was after the employment tribunal couldn’t establish that his ADHD caused his workplace mistakes, and held that constructive criticism wasn’t a sign of discrimination at work.

Below, we examine the case facts and the tribunal’s eventual judgment. We then discuss the signs of unfair treatment at work, including what it actually is. If you have any questions or believe you’ve experienced some form of discrimination in the workplace, please contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law specialists, we can provide the answers you’re looking for and help you seek justice.

To learn more about the services we provide, simply:

• Give us a call on 020 3397 3603
• Request a callback via our online form

The Facts in Mr Thomas Shevlin v John Wiley and Sons Limited

Background to the Alleged Sign of Discrimination at Work

Mr Thomas Shevlin (“the Claimant”) began working as a senior HR operations manager for John Wiley and Sons Limited (“the Respondent”) on 30 May 2022. While he never disclosed it throughout his employment, he asserted during proceedings that he suffered from “dyslexia traits” as a result of ADHD.

From November 2022, Ms Rebecca Roycroft, the Respondent’s vice president of global engagement and client operations, became the Claimant’s line manager. She completed a mid-year review the following February, during which she outlined that he tended to rush correspondence, such as emails. She explained that this led to “[a] lot of typos which can seem messy,” and requested that he address this.

At the time, the Claimant had no issue with the feedback he had been given. However, throughout the hearing, he alleged that his manager’s comments left him “too humiliated” to complain.

End-of-Year Review and Manager’s Suspicions

A few months later, Ms Roycroft undertook the end-of-year review for her team. This involved discussing her team’s performance with them before submitting her review, enabling them to provide input. She met with the Claimant on 28 March 2023 to discuss his performance before submitting her assessment on 4 April.

In her assessment, Ms Roycroft was full of praise for the Claimant’s work. She labelled him an “excellent colleague,” praised his hard work, and emphasised that he was “always keen to get things fixed.” This consequently led to him receiving a rating of “achieved.”

Nonetheless, the Claimant was dissatisfied with his manager’s assessment. This was because, in a section asking how the employee could improve, Ms Roycroft again highlighted his habit of rushing when he was busy, leading to “messy work.” While she emphasised that she generally didn’t mind, acknowledging how hard he worked, she believed cleaning this up would benefit his “personal brand,” especially when dealing with global stakeholders.

At the time, Ms Roycroft, who herself has dyslexia, had suspicions that the Claimant could be dyslexic, too. She raised this with him during a one-to-one meeting on 2 May, but he asserted he was not dyslexic, and the conversation ended. At no point did the Claimant disclose that he had ADHD, nor that he believed this could be the cause of his spelling and grammar difficulties.

Resignation and Complaints: Alleged Sign of Discrimination in the Workplace

Two days later, the Claimant handed in his notice of resignation, taking his final day of employment to 26 July. He suggested that Ms Roycroft’s comments about his “messy work” prompted his resignation.

The Claimant then made several complaints about his manager, the first and second of which concerned her management of his exit from the business, before finally discussing her comments about his work. He made this final complaint on 1 June, claiming her remarks were “very hurtful” as he has dyslexia.

A grievance appeal subsequently ensued on 2 June, but Ms Roycroft’s comments were only briefly discussed. According to the Claimant at the time, her comments weren’t the “crux of the grievance.”

Despite this, following a period of early conciliation through Acas, he pursued employment tribunal proceedings on 28 July. He claimed disability discrimination and unfair treatment at work. In his view, Ms Roycroft’s comments, describing his work as “messy,” were a sign of discrimination since they concerned the effects of ADHD.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Nature of Disability Considered

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal first discussed the Claimant’s disability, which he described as “ADHD with dyslexia traits.” While the Respondent acknowledged that the Claimant had ADHD, it disputed that this condition caused his spelling and grammatical errors.

To determine whether or not the link existed, the tribunal turned to the only medical evidence made available to them. This involved an assessment conducted on 31 October 2023 by Dr Letizia De Mori. Notably, despite confirming his ADHD diagnosis, Dr De Mori made no mention of any “dyslexia traits.”

Therefore, since no other medical evidence was available, the tribunal held that his condition didn’t cause his spelling and grammatical errors. It stated, “The Claimant clearly believes that there is a causal link but, in our judgment, he has not discharged the burden on him to prove that link in the context of these proceedings.”

Lack of Disclosure to the Employer

The tribunal then concerned itself with the Respondent’s knowledge of the Claimant’s disability. This was quickly addressed, since the Claimant had never disclosed his ADHD diagnosis to his colleagues or employer. Although Ms Roycroft had suspicions that the Claimant may have dyslexia, he quickly shut this down, making no further comments. Accordingly, since the Respondent’s knowledge of the Claimant’s conditions was a prerequisite for both claims to succeed, the tribunal dismissed his allegations of unlawful discrimination relating to disability and workplace harassment.

No Sign of Discrimination in Manager’s Comments

For completeness, however, the tribunal entertained the idea that the Claimant’s condition caused his mistakes at work, and that the Respondent had knowledge of this. Even then, though, it was determined that his claims still wouldn’t have succeeded.

The tribunal found that Ms Roycroft’s comments didn’t amount to a sign of discrimination, as they constituted constructive feedback rather than unfavourable treatment. Moreover, even if the Claimant found the criticism unwelcome, the tribunal considered it unreasonable for him to view it as a violation of his dignity or as creating a humiliating environment, particularly in light of his manager’s intention to support his development.

Conclusion: Claims Dismissed on Multiple Grounds

Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed both claims. The Claimant failed to establish a medical or legal basis linking his condition to the workplace issues cited, and the Respondent had no knowledge of his disability. Even if these hurdles had been cleared, the tribunal found no evidence of discriminatory treatment in the manager’s conduct. As a result, the Claimant has now been ordered to pay the Respondent £20,000 in costs.

What is Unfair Treatment at Work?

Following the case where Mr Shevlin unsuccessfully claimed that his manager’s comments were a sign of discrimination and harassment, individuals may question what actually constitutes unfair treatment at work.

Under UK law, such treatment occurs when an employee is treated less favourably due to their protected characteristics. The Equality Act 2010 establishes the relevant characteristics, which include age, disability, race, sex, and religious belief.

Unfair treatment can arise in various forms, including direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, workplace harassment, and victimisation. It is essential to note, however, that not all unfair treatment is unlawful. Workplace bullying without discrimination, for example, isn’t a standalone legal offence. That said, such conduct still poses serious risks, potentially leading to a constructive dismissal claim if it forces an employee to resign due to intolerable working conditions.

With these risks in mind, employers have an important legal duty to maintain a fair workplace. This can be achieved through workplace policies, training, and proper action once an issue has been raised. If an employer fails to act sufficiently, they may face productivity declines due to a demotivated workforce, staff shortages resulting from increased resignations, and substantial legal costs from successful claims.

Signs of Unfair Treatment at Work

Employees who can identify signs of unfair treatment at work early can mitigate harm caused and prevent matters from escalating. It can be difficult to spot such signs, though, so it’s vital that individuals know what to look out for.

Some common signs to watch for include:

• Unwarranted Criticism – If an employee’s work is criticised disproportionately or without good reason, this could indicate targeted unfairness.
• Exclusion from Opportunities – An employee may be deliberately excluded from training or critical workplace information to hinder their career progression.
• Hostile or Dismissive Behaviour – Rude remarks, gossip, or undermining one’s work, regardless of whether it comes from a colleague or manager, can highlight a toxic environment that’s detrimental to an employee’s well-being. 

While the above list isn’t exhaustive, it’s crucial that individuals can recognise when behaviour crosses the line into unlawful conduct. Various avenues are available to address such issues, but swift action is vital since legal claims have strict time limits.

If you believe you’ve experienced a sign of discrimination and have any questions, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law specialists, we can analyse your case, answer your queries, and provide expert advice.

Begin your journey with us today by:

• Phoning us on 020 3397 3603
• Requesting a callback via our online form