Case Miss I Scott v The Secretary of State for Justice, demonstrates how dismissive comments from line managers and informal internal emails can lead to successful victimisation claims.
Miss Scott worked as a court usher at York County Court and suffered from antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), an autoimmune blood-clotting disorder requiring frequent blood-monitoring tests. She also suffered with anxiety and PTSD.
When she requested workplace adjustments to cover her medical appointments and blood tests through flexi-time, her line manager resisted, asking why she could not attend tests on her day off and stating it was ‘ridiculous to expect the company to pay you to go to the doctor’s’. When Miss Scott pointed out that without adjustments, she would owe more time purely because of her disability compared to a healthy person, her manager responded, ‘You’re not owed anything because of being poorly’.
Tensions escalated after Miss Scott formally appealed an attendance warning and alleged disability discrimination. In internal emails, managers expressed frustration, noting that her mother was an employment rights solicitor (‘well that explains a lot’) and writing ‘I know what we feel about [Scott]’. Later, when discussing how to record her sick leave, a senior manager emailed colleagues warning that an administrative error could give Miss Scott ‘more ammunition for her complaints… what a nightmare!’. Miss Scott subsequently uncovered these internal emails by making a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR).
The Rulings
The Manchester Employment Tribunal upheld Miss Scott’s claims of victimisation under Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, ordering the Ministry of Justice to pay £9,480 in compensation (£8,000 for injury to feelings plus £1,480 in interest).
The tribunal’s key findings included:
- Referring to a serious medical condition as ‘being poorly’ trivialised her disability, while telling her she was ‘not owed anything’ improperly implied she was attempting to extract an unwarranted financial advantage. The tribunal found this remark was made because Miss Scott had previously raised concerns about disability discrimination (victimisation).
- The senior manager’s ‘more ammunition… what a nightmare’ email diminished Miss Scott’s standing among management by portraying her as someone building an unjustified case against her employer simply because she had raised complaints.
- The tribunal dismissed her other claims regarding reasonable adjustments to absence trigger points, noting that the employer had already provided significant support elsewhere, such as granting full-day paid disability leave for CBT counselling sessions.
Learnings for Employers - Internal emails are not private. Employees can easily retrieve internal management exchanges via Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs) or tribunal disclosure, and hostile or disparaging comments will be used as direct evidence of victimisation.
- Avoid dismissive language like ‘being poorly’ or treating disability adjustments as employee favours or ‘unwarranted perks’. Managers must address adjustment requests objectively under company policy and in line with the Equality Act 2010.
- Employees who raise grievances, lodge appeals, or request reasonable adjustments are exercising protected legal rights. Labelling an employee as ‘litigious,’ ‘building a case,’ or a ‘nightmare’ because they assert their rights is a classic trigger for victimisation claims.
- Even if managers feel operational strain when covering for absent staff, communications must remain professional, neutral, and focused purely on objective attendance procedures.
Learnings for Employers
- Internal emails are not private. Employees can easily retrieve internal management exchanges via Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs) or tribunal disclosure, and hostile or disparaging comments will be used as direct evidence of victimisation.
- Avoid dismissive language like ‘being poorly’ or treating disability adjustments as employee favours or ‘unwarranted perks’. Managers must address adjustment requests objectively under company policy and in line with the Equality Act 2010.
- Employees who raise grievances, lodge appeals, or request reasonable adjustments are exercising protected legal rights. Labelling an employee as ‘litigious,’ ‘building a case,’ or a ‘nightmare’ because they assert their rights is a classic trigger for victimisation claims.
- Even if managers feel operational strain when covering for absent staff, communications must remain professional, neutral, and focused purely on objective attendance procedures.
