Tribunal awards £200K for disability discrimination after employee with ADHD “set up to fail” by manager
In Ghiotto v Hawkwell House Hotel Ltd Roberta Ghiotto was employed as a Talent and Culture Coordinator at the five-star Hawkwell House Hotel. While she enjoyed the employee wellness aspects of her role, approximately 25% of her duties involved payroll administration – a task she found considerably more difficult due to her ADHD, which she had disclosed to her line manager.
Following the appointment of a new general manager, Anuj Sagar, the situation deteriorated. Mr. Sagar extended her probationary period and directed Ms. Ghiotto to focus exclusively on payroll for three days. To facilitate this, she was placed in a former cupboard – a windowless room without a telephone – purportedly to aid concentration.
Despite having little training or experience in payroll and requesting assistance, Ms. Ghiotto struggled with the task. When she later mentioned her ADHD in a meeting, Mr. Sagar questioned whether she had a formal diagnosis. Upon learning she did not, and following advice from consultants Croner, he dismissed her for failing to meet performance standards.
Employment Judge Akua Reindorf KC ruled that Ms. Ghiotto did have ADHD, which amounted to a disability under the Equality Act, irrespective of the lack of a formal diagnosis. Crucially, the tribunal found that the employer was aware of her condition and its effects.
The judgment was damning regarding the manager’s actions. The tribunal concluded that restricting Ms. Ghiotto’s duties to her most challenging task was not a supportive measure but an attempt “to build evidence to substantiate his view that she was not capable of the job”. She was, in effect, “set up to fail”. Furthermore, the tribunal inferred that Mr. Sagar sought advice on the basis that a lack of diagnosis meant Ms. Ghiotto was unprotected and dismissed her on that mistaken premise.
This case highlights that a condition need not be formally diagnosed to qualify as a disability under the Equality Act 2010. The key test is whether it has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. Employers must not rely on the absence of a medical certificate to avoid making adjustments.
The duty to make reasonable adjustments is proactive. Isolating an employee in a windowless cupboard and stripping away the parts of the job they excel at is the antithesis of this duty. Employers should engage with employees to identify and implement effective support, such as ADHD coaching or clear, structured instructions.
The tribunal’s finding that the manager set the employee up to fail demonstrates that discriminatory motives can be inferred from actions.
Ms. Ghiotto was awarded £200,252 for disability discrimination.
