A receptionist at a law firm who struggled to say the name of her company has lost a harassment and discrimination claim at tribunal.
Miss Earle, who represented herself at the tribunal, brought claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising out of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to disability.
She worked for Wykeham-Hurford Sheppard & Son at the firm’s Chislehurst office as a temporary receptionist administrator in June 2022, but her placement was terminated eight days later.
The firm argued that she could not perform her role to the required standard, that she repeatedly put calls through to lawyers and the firm’s directors rather than the relevant support team member.
Disability discrimination
Teacher who fell asleep in class unfairly dismissed
Rejection of lecturer’s promotion application not discriminatory
“The name Wykeham-Hurford Sheppard & Son is certainly something of a mouthful, but the panel did not agree that it was a difficult or unreasonable task for a receptionist to perform.”
Judge Cowx argued that a new member of staff could have practised the name or had it in writing in front of them when answering the phone, adding that “it was the manner in which Miss Earle refused to accept her own obvious shortcomings which further undermined her credibility”.
Earle claimed that she performed her role competently, however, and that her contract had been terminated due to her disability, which was back, neck and shoulder pain.
The tribunal heard that on her first day at the firm she had noticed leaves on the office floor. Despite being told these would be handled by a cleaner, she found a hoover to clear them up but this did not have a hose attachment, so she had to bend down. This caused her back pain.
She claimed that the criticism of her putting clients straight through to fee earners was unjustified, as her past experience in a law centre would have considered this “unprofessional”.
The tribunal panel agreed that she had suffered from back pain but did not accept that any physical impairment was having a “substantial and adverse” effect on her ability to carry out her work.
Among the allegations of harassment were that a colleague kicked her chair, which aggravated her back condition, but this was also refuted.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
The judgment added: “Because Miss Earle did not meet the statutory definition of disability, her claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from a disability, an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability related harassment must fail.”
Employee relations opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more Employee Relations jobs
