A tribunal has ruled that worker, subjected to jokes about Alzheimer’s disease, was a victim of harassment and direct discrimination. This is despite the comments having been meant as “office banter”.
The details
Mrs M Crompton, who worked for Eden Private Staff from March 2018 until her dismissal in June 2019. Her manager made comments implying that her memory was “defective” because of her age and that she had Alzheimer’s which was linked to her poor performance.
She worked as an administrator before switching to the role of search consultant in January 2019. The tribunal heard that Crompton was “enthusiastic and communicated well on the telephone and with the team”, however, she was also “making errors in welcome letters and CVs that she was sending out”.
On 6 March, H. Wallbridge and K. Burridge, who were both managers at Eden Private Staff, met with Crompton as part of her probationary period and discussed these errors although the feedback was positive. They met again on 18th April to again discuss her progress, where they raised a number of specific issues, including asking Crompton to check letters and CVs “more carefully before sending them out and check that the most up to date CVs were used”.
At this meeting Crompton told Wallbridge and Burridge that Burridge’s “anger and impatience” towards her made her “uncomfortable and made it difficult for me to ask for help”. She said she enjoyed the work, but the thought of entering that office each morning made her “tearful and nervous”.
By 24 May, Wallbridge and Burridge had concluded that Crompton was “taking too long to learn the basics and had to be dismissed”. They handed Crompton a letter of dismissal the day, with a notice period ending on 21 June. The reason given was “inadequate performance during extended probation period”.
On 3 June, Crompton was signed off work due to stress and did not return.
On 14th June Crompton provided Wallbridge with a grievance letter setting our her claims of unfair treatment on the grounds of age discrimination.
Investigations into this, by an HR professional, found that Burridge had suggested on several occasions that Crompton had Alzheimer’s disease. Crompton stated that Burridge would make comments such as: “Is it Alzheimer’s again?” when Crompton had forgotten something. She could not provide dates or times, but said this was something that happened around once a week.
The next day (20 June), the consultant spoke with Burridge on the phone and asked if she had made any comments about Alzheimer’s. Burridge explained there was “a bit of a laugh and joke” among colleagues and that another colleague was referred to as “dementia Debbie”, adding that “everyone calls her this”.
In her witness statement before the tribunal, Burridge gave further detail about these comments, and recalled saying to Crompton on one occasion: “That will be the Alzheimer’s”.
The HR Consultant report was submitted on 8th August and on 13th August a letter was sent to Crompton upholding one of her grievances relating to the extension of her probation period and dismissing all others. Crompton brought claims of harassment and discrimination because of her age to the employment tribunal.
The tribunal decision
Burridge admitted to the tribunal that her comment might have caused offence, that she was sorry, had received training and had moved on.
The tribunal found in favour for part of Crompton’s claim of direct discrimination. The tribunal found the Alzheimer’s remarks were an act of direct discrimination because they would not have been made to a search consultant materially younger than Crompton.
Judge Matthews doubted that Burridge’s purpose was to violate Crompton’s dignity as Burridge “almost certainly saw her remarks as no more than office banter”. However, this did not detract from the fact that the comments had this effect on Crompton.
Matthews added that the fact that Crompton had referred to having a “senior moment” in a communication with a client also did not “detract from the fact that it was reasonable for Mrs Crompton to find the remarks intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive.”
However, the tribunal found that the extension of her probation period was not because of her age and was based on her performance. Age was not a factor.
The tribunal ordered Eden Private Staff to pay Crompton £900 as compensation in respect of the harassment and direct discrimination together with interest of £100.41, noting that the evidence suggested “any injury having been slight” and that no complaints were lodged at the time the remarks about Alzheimer’s were made.
Conclusion
This is a clear example of the way in which comments made as ‘office banter’ should never be discriminatory in tone or content. Employers and employees need to be aware of what constitutes acceptable behaviour. Any allegations made should be fully investigated with disciplinary action taken if necessary.
If you would like advice or guidance on this or any related matter please contact us directly.