Home | Business Law | Employment Advice for Employers | Woman with diabetes was ‘humiliated’ by her employers

Woman with diabetes was ‘humiliated’ by her employers

June 7th 2019
 

By Joanne Stronach Head of Employment & HR

A woman who suffers from diabetes has been awarded £14,000 after being humiliated at work.

Holly Carr, who had type 1 diabetes, worked as a fleet administrator at Weston Homes for two months.

She told her line manager, Lauren Goodwin, and events co-ordinator Gaynor Impiazza, about her condition at a staff lunch to welcome her. She said she wouldn’t be drinking alcohol as she was diabetic.

Goodwin then told Carr she must attend an HR meeting where she was asked questions about her medication and her strategy for keeping her condition under control.

She was asked how often she tested her blood and what time she took her medication. She said she always kept an ‘emergency’ bottle of orange juice, which she handed to another member of staff, Mrs Moorcroft, to see.

Goodwin also took Carr around the office so she could tell first aiders about her condition. At a site visit, Carr didn’t join her colleague in getting food from a food van and was quizzed by Moorcroft about her sugar levels.

She became worried that Moorcroft was trying to catch her out and let her know the company was keeping an eye on her.

Carr later discovered that Goodwin and Impiazza had discussed her condition in an email conversation.

Impiazza had said: “Let’s hope so… as long as she doesn’t go into hypoglycaemic [low blood sugar level] shock anytime soon!!!” followed by a ‘shocked face’ emoji.

There were similar incidents before Carr was let go by Weston Homes in a meeting where she was told her ‘employment was not going to work out’ after a car wasn’t cleaned on time.

Carr asked for further information but the company was reluctant to give her more details, so she brought a disability discrimination claim.

The Employment Tribunal ruled that while Carr’s work was not perfect, the allegations were not substantial enough to warrant her dismissal.

The questioning that Carr faced at the meeting had been “excessive, invasive and heavy handed”. 

Moorcroft said she had wanted to learn more about the illness, but the court ruled that Carr’s HR meeting was not the time or place to do so.

It also rejected Impiazza’s claim that her email was out of genuine concern and was, in fact, a joke at Carr’s expense.

The judge said that being taken around the office and made to announce that she was diabetic must have been ‘highly embarrassing’ for Carr and that the incident at the food van amounted to harassment.

The tribunal ruled that the main reason for Carr’s dismissal had been her disability and awarded her £14,000 compensation.

If you would like any more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of employment law then please contact Joanne Stronach on 01228 516 666 or email her here.

Share on Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email
We'll call you...
 
This website uses cookies
This site uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience. We use necessary cookies to make sure that our website works. We’d also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. By clicking “Allow All”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
These cookies are required for basic functionalities such as accessing secure areas of the website, remembering previous actions and facilitating the proper display of the website. Necessary cookies are often exempt from requiring user consent as they do not collect personal data and are crucial for the website to perform its core functions.
A “preferences” cookie is used to remember user preferences and settings on a website. These cookies enhance the user experience by allowing the website to remember choices such as language preferences, font size, layout customization, and other similar settings. Preference cookies are not strictly necessary for the basic functioning of the website but contribute to a more personalised and convenient browsing experience for users.
A “statistics” cookie typically refers to cookies that are used to collect anonymous data about how visitors interact with a website. These cookies help website owners understand how users navigate their site, which pages are most frequently visited, how long users spend on each page, and similar metrics. The data collected by statistics cookies is aggregated and anonymized, meaning it does not contain personally identifiable information (PII).
Marketing cookies are used to track user behaviour across websites, allowing advertisers to deliver targeted advertisements based on the user’s interests and preferences. These cookies collect data such as browsing history and interactions with ads to create user profiles. While essential for effective online advertising, obtaining user consent is crucial to comply with privacy regulations.