A judge said it was 'unusual' that she had a pair at home but did not raise it, but added it did not 'undermine her case' as 'the duty to make reasonable adjustments is on the employer not the employee'. The judge ordered that Ms Vale's bosses should pay her £19,141 in compensation, including £15,124 for injury to her feelings.
That was the correct decision but questions need to be asked how this woman was ever employed.
Ms Vale began her employment as a victim and witness care officer at the force in a temporary role to cover a long-term absence in September 2023. She was new to policing as she 'had a background in creative arts' and had owned her own creative arts business.
You couldn’t make it up and in the UK in 2026, you never have to…
She said she was previously a self-employed artist because her ADHD made her not want to work with others. Ms Vale had only been diagnosed with ADHD via an online consultation with ADHD360 in May 2023 after her GP had refused to diagnose her because they thought it was simply 'low self-esteem'.
Upon beginning work at the police force, Ms Vale requested that she be supplied with noise cancelling headphones and informed them of her ADHD.
The ADHD that she didn’t officially have…
She requested noise cancelling headphones again after a four-week probation review in October. Ms Vale's line manager Jennie Clarke asked: 'These are noise cancelling ones not the routine ones - is that correct?
'I will be asked can I confirm why you need those as opposed to a normal headset. Let me know.'
The manager is clueless, and obviously can’t use Google!
Shortly after, in November 2023, Ms Vale had a health scare at work in which she believed she was suffering a heart attack.Ms Vale confided in a colleague who had worked as nurse during this episode that 'her GP has no awareness of what she is taking' because her health was being handled solely by ADHD360.
Ms Vale had a meeting with Miss Clarke shortly after where she disclosed her own 'doubts' about ADHD360.
Aha, the manager has learned how to use Google in the interim!
Ms Vale went on sick leave in December 2023, but when Miss Clarke wrote to the support officer to check on her, Ms Vale raised a grievance and asked not to be contacted again.
Not a serious issue, simply a delaying tactic.
She did not attend any grievance meetings and her employment ended in March 2024, although this had been the plan as the previous member of staff returned from their absence at this time.
And no doubt everyone reathed a HUGE sigh of relief.
Ms Vale then took the police force to an employment tribunal in Bristol, alleging that the staff had spread cruel rumours about her and made dismissive remarks. The tribunal concluded that the staff had actually been supportive of her throughout her employment and dismissed some of Ms Vale's claims.
And why did she lie so blatently? Why not? There are, after all, no reasons not to. There are no sanctions for frivolous claims, just as there are no sanctions for the police HR department when they hire unsuitable flakes fot temporary roles.
No comments:
Post a Comment