A public relations professional diagnosed with ADHD has successfully secured nearly £35,000 in compensation after taking legal action against her employer for describing her as ‘disorganised.’
Nicole Hogger pursued claims of disability harassment, discrimination, and unfair constructive dismissal against Genesis PR, a company located in Ipswich, Suffolk. The case arose when her manager used the term to characterize her work habits.
In a ruling by Employment Judge Roger Tynan, it was determined that labeling someone as ‘disorganised’ can constitute daily discrimination under UK employment law. The judge noted that this description undermined Miss Hogger and compromised her dignity.
The Cambridge Employment Tribunal supported Miss Hogger’s case, asserting that she experienced harassment related to her disability, ADHD.
The incident that sparked the use of the term occurred when Miss Hogger missed a crucial meeting without notifying her team of her absence.
As a result of the tribunal’s decision, Miss Hogger has been awarded £34,686 in compensation from Genesis PR. She had been with the company since 2018, initially serving as a Senior PR Account Executive before advancing to the role of PR Account Manager in 2020.
The tribunal heard Alison Straker, a member of the senior leadership team, ‘championed’ Miss Hogger’s promotion because of her effective work and then became her line manager in 2021.
Miss Hogger was responsible for leading client projects, managing communication campaigns, and organising events.
Nicole Hogger won claims of disability discrimination and harassment after her manager described her as being ‘disorganised’ when she has ADHD (stock photo)
However, it was heard that she struggled with her workload, and her manager alleged she would miss calls because ‘she had been out for a massage, to Starbucks, or to the supermarket.’
The worker was diagnosed with ADHD in 2021, with her doctor stating she showed ‘poor organisation, forgetfulness and difficulty getting started on tasks requiring significant mental effort.’
A diagnostic report stated Miss Hogger had difficulty ‘maintaining attention’ and that ‘procrastination has always been a problem’ – but Miss Hogger never gave this report to her employers, instead mentioning the diagnosis to Ms Straker privately.
At the beginning of 2022, Miss Hogger’s managers began noticing she was ‘anxious’ and not coping well with the increased workload. Ms Straker tried to help Miss Hogger by speaking to her and even transferred some of her workload to a colleague, the tribunal heard.
Miss Hogger said she felt like ‘a weight had been lifted,’ as a result, but she soon began missing calls and managers raised concerns about her performance.
It was only at this point that Ms Straker began to agree with the other managers, saying she found Miss Hogger’s repeated performance issues ‘concerning.’
In October 2022, a senior accounts manager said that Miss Hogger ‘had gone dark again’ and wasn’t responding or communicating with her colleagues when ‘critical’ work was due. Ms Straker described this as ‘not acceptable.’
In June 2023, Ms Straker spoke to Miss Hogger after she had missed the start of an important meeting.
Ms Straker said that when colleagues couldn’t get hold of her, Miss Hogger would sometimes later tell them ‘she had been out for a massage, to Starbucks or to the supermarket’ while she was supposed to be contactable.
Ms Straker added that this could have led Miss Hogger’s ‘colleagues to think she was disorganised or uncommitted,’ but her ADHD wasn’t raised as a reason for why she’d missed the meeting.
As a result, Ms Staker put Miss Hogger on a Performance Improvement Plan.
However, Miss Hogger resigned from the company the next day and later set up her own business.
Employment Judge Roger Tynan concluded that Genesis PR did not consider Miss Hogger’s ADHD in these circumstances and awarded her £34,686 in compensation.
On Miss Hogger being called ‘disorganised’, Judge Tynan said: ‘In our judgement, even if this was not intended, Ms Straker’s comments undermined [her].
‘They served to highlight her disorganisation without, however, suggesting any practical steps to avoid a similar situation arising in the future.
‘There was little, if anything, that [Miss Hogger] could usefully do with the feedback.
‘Ms Straker maintains that it was intended as constructive feedback.
‘We suggest that a more constructive approach would have been to explore with [Miss Hogger] whether and, if so, what steps might be taken to raise awareness of her condition, and indeed other neurodivergent conditions, within the workplace, or at least amongst [Miss Hogger’s] immediate colleagues.’
Addressing the claim of constructive dismissal, Judge Tynan added: ‘[Genesis PR] acted in these matters without reasonable and proper cause.
‘It discriminated against the [Miss Hogger] by: failing to make a reasonable adjustment; subjecting her to an adverse environment on 19 June 2023; and taking a disproportionate approach to performance issues in July 2023.
‘In the circumstances we uphold [Miss Hogger’s] complaint that she was unfairly dismissed and her further complaint that her constructive dismissal was also an act of unlawful direct discrimination in so far as it was in response to contraventions of the Equality Act 2010.’
