In a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of London United Busways Ltd v Mr O Sener has sparked discussions about disability-related workplace harassment.

Mr Sener, the Claimant was diagnosed with a urinary tract condition, requiring frequent toilet breaks. Following his GP’s advice in 2017, he was removed to shorter routes with appropriate facilities. However, incidents between 2018 and 2019 revealed ongoing conflict between Mr Sener and his employer regarding his medical needs. These included questions about the delays caused by his breaks, refusal to provide overtime, and comments from managers and controllers about his condition.

The tribunal found that this act had the unintentional effect of violating Mr Sener’s dignity, despite no malicious intent by the employer. For instance, repeated questioning about toilet use embarrassed Mr Sener, contributing to a hostile work environment.

His employer appealed to the tribunal’s decision, examining whether the Claimant’s perception of harassment was reasonable under the circumstances. The employer asserted that some meetings and interactions such as those conducted for welfare or operational checks, were misinterpreted as harassment.

Despite this, the EAT upheld the ET’s decision.

This case demonstrates unintentional actions can still be considered harassment if they impact an employee’s dignity or well-being. Employers are encouraged to provide adequate training to ensure equitable treatment to reduce the likelihood of similar disputes.