Amid the backlash over Gregg Wallace’s use of his autism diagnosis to give a context to his inappropriate sexualised behaviour, one employment lawyer has argued that the BBC presenter should be taken seriously. Adam McCulloch examines three legal perspectives on the case
Many newspapers have this week encouraged ridicule of Gregg Wallace in the wake of his sacking from MasterChef, after the presenter revealed his autism diagnosis and stated it had a role in his sexualised, inappropriate behaviour – some of which have been described as harassment.
Samantha Dickinson, equality and diversity partner at Mayo Wynne Baxter, has pointed out that employers, legally, need to offer some measure of support to neurodivergent employees, even if their behaviour is “socially awkward”.
Equality laws
HR is second ‘most sexist profession’ survey suggests
BBC to ‘act immediately’ on workplace culture review
Wallace was sacked after an investigation revealed additional examples of poor behaviour dating back more than 10 years.
They include 11 women accusing him of inappropriate sexual behaviour such as groping and touching. One woman claimed he pulled down his trousers in a dressing room in front of her.
Charities and groups working with disabled people were critical of the presenter after he appeared to link claims of misconduct he is facing to his mental health.
In a statement this week, Wallace said he had recently been diagnosed with autism, but that TV bosses had failed to “investigate my disability” or “protect me from what I now realise was a dangerous environment”.
He wrote on Instagram: “My neurodiversity, now formally diagnosed as autism, was suspected and discussed by colleagues across countless seasons of MasterChef.
One charity told BBC News that autism was “not a free pass for bad behaviour”, while other groups warned that such remarks risked stigmatising the autistic community.
‘Disability is not always neat’
Dickinson said those who dismissed Wallace’s explanation for his actions as nonsense were “missing a vital point”.
She said: “Employers have a legal obligation to understand and support neurodivergent employees even when the disability manifests in complex, uncomfortable or socially awkward ways.
“Autistic traits like sensory sensitivity, differences in communication and challenges with social boundaries are real.”
Despite this, said Dickinson, “autism is not, and should not be used as, a label to explain away poor behaviour, nor should it shield anyone from accountability.”
She pointed out that if Wallace’s claims were true, and the BBC suspected he was neurodivergent yet did nothing, they may need to reflect on their part in the failure to protect those Wallace has harassed.
Recently, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that a candidate’s diagnosis of ADHD and autism was sufficient to amount to disability and he succeeded in a discrimination case, for example.
“Disability isn’t always visible, neat or easy to navigate. Employers don’t get to pick and choose which versions of disability they’re comfortable accommodating. If someone’s neurodivergence contributes to behaviour that crosses lines, the response shouldn’t be silence or dismissal. It should be structured support, clear boundaries and reasonable adjustments.”
Dickinson added: “Autism doesn’t excuse harm, but it does demand understanding. That’s not an indulgence. It’s the law.”
Presumption of guilt
Marcus Johnstone of PCD Solicitors, a law firm dedicated to sexual offence defence representation, warned of the dangers of judging Wallace too quickly. He said: “no charges have yet been brought. No police investigation is taking place. The matter, as it presently stands, is purely civil – an issue of employment, not illegality.
“Despite this, Wallace is now being subject to something as severe as a prosecution, but without the means to defend himself. Colleagues have denounced him, campaigners have maligned him, and even the prime minister has gone on record to express his concern. At every step of this process, the BBC has dedicated hours of coverage, which in my view is slanted very much towards the presumption of guilt.
“What is particularly interesting is how this is juxtaposed with the reasonableness and nuance shown by the BBC during the Huw Edwards scandal, a far more serious and criminal case.”
He warned of overreacting to harassment allegations, using the “hounding” of Cliff Richard over unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault dating from 1985 for which he was never even arrested or charged, as an example of unjustified persecution. Richard’s treatment (in 2014) came in the wake of the outcry over the exposure of Jimmy Savile’s long history of sexual assault, which, said Johnstone should give pause for reflection.
Johnstone warned: “As the facts are yet to be established, I would suggest that everyone shows caution in this case. Mr Wallace may prove to be a misogynistic dinosaur but he is still deserving of a fair process and the opportunity to clear his name.”
As for autism, Johnstone said the condition was considered a factor in criminal cases. He said: “I have represented a great number of neurodiverse clients who feel that their struggles with autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and other challenges, has caused them to act in a way that would be inappropriate to most. In criminal matters, this can be viewed as a mitigation.”
Media sector’s blind eye
Meanwhile, Thomas Beale, partner and head of workplace bullying and harassment at Bolt Burdon Kemp, was more concerned about the media sector’s willingness to turn a blind eye to sexual harassment. He said the “allegations against Wallace are indicative of a larger issue within the media industry. Businesses have been far too protective of those in power, and it is essential that we continue to empower victims to speak out and force change.
“I am hopeful that recent legislative changes, including the establishment of the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority, will work towards facilitating the establishment of safe and respectful work environments in the industry”.
The BBC recently pledged that it would “act immediately” on the findings of its workplace culture review, including transparent and swift processes to report misconduct, including if this happens at production companies working for the broadcaster.
It may be concluded that the cycle of turning a blind eye to sexual misconduct and then overreaction to it is endemic within the media sector. Perhaps the Wallace case is finally an opportunity for leaders to implement proper strategies and procedures, using the new sexual harassment rules embedded in the Employment Rights Bill, to restore effectiveness, perspective and fairness around the issue.
More measured reporting by newspapers – and an understanding of autism – will be a more difficult nut to crack, however.
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Browse more human resources jobs
