Police worker with ADHD subjected to disability harassment

A police worker with ADHD whose employer subjected her to disability harassment and failed to make reasonable adjustments by not providing noise-cancelling headphones, has been awarded £19,100 at the employment tribunal.

Donna Vale worked for Avon and Somerset Police as a victim and witness care officer between September 2023 and May 2024, on a fixed-term contract.

She had disclosed her ADHD at the start of her contract and had been diagnosed by a private company, ADHD360, which was also supplying her medication.

When she began work, she requested noise-cancelling headphones, but they were not provided.

Shortly into her employment, a discussion arose around available headsets for taking calls and Vale was directed to the force’s admin hub, where she could access the appropriate equipment. She still did not receive noise-cancelling headphones.

A few weeks later, Vale became unwell at work, feeling as though she might be having a heart attack. A number of colleagues helped her, at which point she made a disclosure about her ADHD diagnosis and medication.

The tribunal heard that, following this incident, a number of rumours circulated about whether she was obtaining drugs on the “dark web”.

She later revealed to a manager that she felt her usual tea bags had been removed, and so she had taken in more caffeine than usual.

Her manager, Miss Clarke, questioned whether she had seen a GP, as her diagnosis had been confirmed by a private company and her medication was established via a call centre.

In her claim, Vale alleged that Clarke “repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of ADHD360 and my diagnosis”.

It was agreed between Clarke and other managers that, as there was no “official” diagnosis, no action should be taken in terms of referral to occupational health.

Notes from a further meeting indicate that managers at the force felt she was being exploited by the medical company after it was featured in a Panorama programme regarding alleged high ADHD diagnosis levels.

One note said: “I do not believe that Donna has deceived us deliberately, I think she has been deceived and potentially exploited as she 100% believes she has ADHD and this to her is a clear explanation as to how she is and she gets great comfort from this.”

At her eight-week review, it became clear that Vale was experiencing challenges with her work. She was directed to another colleague for help on a particular task, and there was a sense that she was overwhelmed.

Her manager continued to offer support, but Vale began a period of sickness absence soon after. She was then referred to occupational health.

Vale raised a grievance on 18 December 2023, alleging that her manager did not contact her while she was ill.

She was invited to a probation meeting at the beginning of January 2024, at which she requested a different manager be present. She continued to be signed off sick and in March, and occupational health advised a “welfare move” as she was experiencing work-related stress.

Her contract was due to end on 10 May 2024, and on 3 May she was given seven days’ notice of the termination of her contract.

Vale told the tribunal that this was unexpected as she had been under the impression she would take over the role from the substantive post holder.

Although the post holder was returning, the department received some additional funding that would have enabled Vale to continue in the secondment.

The force upheld part of her grievance relating to the lack of headphones, but Vale assumed that “her” job was now being advertised and doubted the genuineness of her contract being terminated.

Employment Judge Edmund Beever upheld her claim of disability harassment following the comments made by her manager about her ADHD.

The tribunal also upheld her claim for failure to provide reasonable adjustments, but dismissed claims of unfair dismissal, breach of confidentiality, discrimination arising from disability and direct discrimination.

Judge Beever added that an unusual aspect of the case was that Vale had noise-cancelling headphones at home, but did not raise this with Clarke, and did not use them at work. He described this as “unfortunate” but added that the duty to make reasonable adjustments is on the employer, not the employee.

Following Vale’s successful claim of unlawful discrimination amounting to harassment and Avon and Somerset Police’s failure to make reasonable adjustments by providing her with noise-cancelling headphones, the judge awarded her £19,100.

This comprised £15,100 for injury to feelings and £2,300 for financial loss, both including interest, and a 10% Acas uplift of £1,700.

This article was originally published on 29 April 2026 and was updated following the tribunal’s remedy judgment.