A police employee diagnosed with ADHD has successfully won a disability discrimination lawsuit because her employer failed to provide noise-cancelling headphones—even though she already owned a pair at home.
Donna Vale requested these headphones when she began her role with the police, citing her neurodivergent condition and the need to reduce background noise, according to tribunal proceedings.
Despite having a pair of headphones at home, Vale communicated to her new supervisor about her need and eventually stopped requesting them from her employer.
Nevertheless, the tribunal concluded that Avon and Somerset Constabulary had an obligation to fulfill her request, leading to her victory in the disability discrimination case.
As a result, Vale is set to receive a compensation sum of £126,000 after taxes and legal expenses.
The judge acknowledged that it was ‘unusual’ for Vale to possess a pair at home and not continually pursue the request, but emphasized that the responsibility to make reasonable accommodations lies with the employer, not the employee.
The victim and witness care officer at Avon and Somerset Constabulary began in a temporary role to cover a long-time 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.
Former police worker Donna Vale, who has ADHD, has won a disability discrimination case because she was not given noise-cancelling headphones
Ms Vale said she was previously a self-employed artist, because her ADHD made her not want to work with others.
She was only diagnosed with ADHD via an online consultation with ADHD360 in May 2023 after her GP thought Ms Vale’s symptoms were down to ‘low self-esteem’.
ADHD360 was recently the subject of a Panorama episode in which an undercover journalist was diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed medication without proper checks.
After starting work with the police force, Ms Vale requested that she be supplied with noise-cancelling headphones and told her employer about the condition.
She requested the device again after her 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 victim care officer did not ask for the headphones again.
Employment Judge Edmund Beever said ‘It was an issue that fell between the cracks’.
Judge Beever continued: ‘There is one unusual aspect to this. Ms Vale had some noise-cancelling headphones at home.
‘She did not raise that fact with Miss Clarke, and did not use them at work.
‘This may be seen as unfortunate, but… the duty to make reasonable adjustments is on the employer and not the employee.’
Judge Beever added: ‘For argument’s sake, self-helping in such a case as this is not sufficient of itself to undermine [Ms Vale’s] case in respect of any broader challenge by the [police force] that [she] may not have been under a disadvantage.’
Shortly after, in November 2023 Ms Vale had a health scare at work in which she believed she was suffering a heart attack.
She 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.
The tribunal heard that Miss Clarke agreed, and questioned the diagnosis, saying that she could be being ‘exploited’ in light of the Panorama investigation.
Ms Vale went on sickness absence 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.
She did not attend any grievance meetings and her employment ended in March 2024, as was the plan for when the previous member of staff returned from their absence.
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 the staff had actually been supportive of her throughout her employment and dismissed some of Ms Vale’s claims.
However, she won a claim of failure to make a reasonable adjustment – a form of disability discrimination – because the force did not supply the headphones.
The tribunal ruled that the force had failed to supply Ms Vale with headphones and she would now be in line for a payout as a result
Judge Beever said: ‘It was unfortunate that [Ms Vale] did not inform Miss Clarke and/or discuss the use of her noise cancelling headphones at home.
‘All that said, it is not sufficient to negate a finding that [Ms Vale] was at a substantial disadvantage, which the [police force] could reasonably have known.
‘Providing [Ms Vale] with noise-cancelling headphones was a reasonable adjustment which the [police force] failed to do.’
Ms Vale also won a claim of disability harassment, because Miss Clarke questioned her ADHD diagnosis.
Judge Beever said: ‘It was [Ms Vale] that introduced Panorama programme into the conversation, but that does not demand the conclusion that [Ms Vale] was content with a conversation the underlying premise of which was that her employer was doubtful that she was properly diagnosed let alone agreeing with her employer’s suggestion that she had been exploited.
‘The Tribunal finds that [Ms Vale’s] perception was that her diagnosis and the treatment that she was being advised to take had been undermined by her employer.
‘Taking into account all circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the effect of the conduct of Miss Clarke at the 16 November 2023 meeting in questioning [Ms Vale’s] private ADHD diagnosis and insinuating that [Ms Vale] had been exploited and that the medication might as a result be unapproved and unsafe amounted to unlawful harassment.’
