Tribunal Rules Sighing at a Colleague as a Sign of Workplace Harassment

In Mr Robert Watson v Roke Manor Research Limited, a software engineer has succeeded with his claim after the employment tribunal ruled that sighing was a sign of workplace harassment. Additionally, he won claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Below, we examine the facts that led to his claim and the tribunal’s judgment. We then discuss when neurodiverse individuals should request reasonable adjustments and their subsequent options if their rights aren’t met.

If you have any questions about discrimination, bullying and harassment at work, make sure to contact Redmans Solicitors immediately. As employment law specialists, we can analyse your circumstances, answer your queries, and provide expert advice. All you have to do to get started is:

The Facts in Mr Robert Watson v Roke Manor Research Limited

Sighing: A Sign of Workplace Harassment? Case Background

Mr Robert Watson (“the Claimant”) worked as a software engineer for Roke Manor Research Limited (“the Respondent”) from August 2020. Unfortunately, after his employment commenced, he started to experience difficulties with timekeeping, focus, and distractions. These symptoms were later connected to his neurodiversity, but weren’t known at the time.

By 29 September, the Claimant discussed suspicions that he might be neurodiverse with his manager, seeking understanding and support. He was then formally diagnosed with ADHD in November and took four days of sick leave shortly after.

Return to Work and Rising Tensions

When the Claimant returned to work, rather than receiving the support he probably anticipated, he was met with difficulties. A project leader, referred to only as DT for national security concerns, expressed frustration about his absence.

Between 28 November and 15 December, DT allegedly questioned the Claimant on his working hours, patterns, and the time spent at his project desk. This occurred both on a one-to-one basis and in front of colleagues, where DT “expressed non-verbal frustrations such as sighing and exaggerated exhales.”

When the Claimant informed DT, during a December one-to-one meeting, that his behaviour was causing him stress and anxiety, the project leader responded that he’d intended to put pressure on him. “Putting your ADHD aside for a moment,” he said, DT went on to state that the Claimant was “becoming a net detriment.”

Struggling to cope with the treatment he was experiencing, the Claimant again went on sick leave from February 2023. Unfortunately, he never returned. In May 2023, the software engineer filed his disability discrimination claim, and by January 2024, he was dismissed.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

When a Sigh Becomes a Sign of Workplace Harassment

Following the proceedings, employment judge Catherine Rayner outlined the tribunal’s judgment. While she dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and particular discrimination, she upheld claims of discrimination under sections 15, 20, 21, and 26 of the Equality Act 2010. Specifically, these concerned discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment.

Judge Rayner went on to explain that the sighing and other non-verbal frustrations “arose from things which themselves arose from Mr Watson’s disability.” These included his difficulties with timekeeping and the way in which he worked. Because of this, DT’s conduct was found to be a sign of workplace harassment and discrimination.

While Judge Rayner could accept that DT was under genuine pressure, which contributed to his actions, she stated that this didn’t excuse his behaviour. Ultimately, the Respondent could have taken steps to identify adjustments that may have minimised the Claimant’s struggles, enabling him to work more efficiently, and minimising the pressure DT was under. Had the Respondent acted in such a way, discrimination could have been entirely avoided.

Following the Claimant’s successful ruling, a remedy hearing will now take place to determine his compensation.

The Legal Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments

In the above case, where sighing and other non-verbal frustrations were found to have been a sign of workplace harassment, reasonable adjustments could have helped the Claimant manage his ADHD and the Respondent avoid legal liability.

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for individuals with disabilities. This obligation extends not only to employees but also to job applicants, contractors, and agency workers.

Such adjustments comprise changes that remove or mitigate the disadvantages disabled individuals experience in the workplace. They can include changes to policies, alterations to the physical environment, or the provision of auxiliary aids or support. What constitutes “reasonable” will depend on several factors, including the adjustment’s effectiveness, its cost, and the practicality of implementation.

Reasonable Adjustments and Neurodiversity

In the context of neurodiversity, while not all neurodivergent people will consider themselves disabled, many conditions, such as ADHD, autism, and dyslexia, will satisfy the legal definition of disability. In such circumstances, if an employer knows about or ought to have known about one’s condition, the legal duty applies. For individuals with ADHD, reasonable adjustments might include flexible working arrangements, frequent short breaks, or environmental modifications such as a quieter workspace.

If a neurodiverse individual requires any workplace adjustments, they should first disclose their condition to their employer. This should prompt an assessment, where the employer identifies how the individual’s disability is affecting them at work and the possible adjustments that can be made to resolve the issue.

However, if the employer fails to carry out its duty, the individual should then consider internal remedies. This could begin with an informal chat, prompting the employer to fulfil its obligations; however, if no changes are made, a formal grievance may be raised.

In circumstances where all internal avenues have been exhausted and a resolution still hasn’t been found, it may be time to look elsewhere. Acas is usually a good place to start, as it offers free, impartial advice and an early conciliation service which can help resolve the matter outside of a tribunal.

If the issue persists after this, however, the individual may need to initiate employment tribunal proceedings. To do so, specific time limits and eligibility criteria must be satisfied. Yet, before proceeding, it’s often wise to seek specialist legal advice to ensure the correct action is taken.

Don’t Ignore a Sign of Workplace Harassment — Contact Redmans Today!

If you have any questions about reasonable adjustments or what could be a sign of workplace harassment, contact us now. It may be that you’re unsure of your rights or believe they’ve been breached. Whatever the case, Redmans Solicitors is here to help.

As experts in the employment sector, we can provide specialist advice and discuss your options going forward. To learn how we can help you today, simply: