Is it discrimination to call a neurodiverse employee a ‘weirdo’?

July 8, 2025

In the recent Tribunal case of Nicholas James v The Venture (Wrexham) Ltd the Claimant brought claims against his employer after his manager called him a ‘weirdo’. The Tribunal decision highlights the importance of practising inclusion consistently, not just in service delivery, but within the workplace itself.

Background

The Claimant worked at The Venture, a registered charity which provides several community-based services. The Claimant began work as a Project Worker in 2021, specifically supporting children and young people with neurodevelopmental conditions. The Claimant later took on additional duties by assisting with the Respondent’s evening open access sessions.

When the Claimant agreed to assist with the open access sessions, he explained that his sensory sensitivities meant that he would struggle with background noise and bright lights. The Claimant therefore requested a reduction in both to aid his concentration and lessen his anxiety. Senior staff initially agreed to these adjustments but failed to implement them consistently. The Claimant was also unable to work certain open access events because music was being played which meant that he would be unable to concentrate properly.

In addition to this, several comments were made by the Chief Officer to the Claimant during his employment. The Chief Officer, also the Claimant’s manager, referred to him as a ‘weirdo’ during a team meeting and asked why he could not be ‘ordinary and perfect like the rest of them’. The Chief Officer made another comment trivialising the Claimant’s inability to work in the open access sessions by comparing it with someone coming to work whilst hungover.

The Claimant submitted a grievance, stating that he had been discriminated against and that his requests for reasonable adjustments had not been followed. Whilst the grievance process was ongoing, the Respondent advised the Claimant that he could not continue to work on the open access sessions because of concerns about maintaining a ‘safe practice’. The Claimant was therefore prevented from undertaking the open access role and did not receive any further pay in respect of that role. Later, concerns were raised about the Claimant’s Project Worker role and his alleged failure to report an incident. The Respondent subsequently carried out a risk assessment and suspended the Claimant.

The Claimant brought a claim against his employer, arguing that he had been “continually disregarded because of his condition”.

Decision

The Tribunal upheld the Claimant’s claims of victimisation and unauthorised deduction from wages and partially upheld the claims of discrimination arising from disability, harassment, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal found that removing the Claimant’s open access role and subsequent failure to pay wages in respect of that role amounted to a detriment arising from a protected act. It also found that the failure to implement agreed adjustments consistently amounted to a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal determined that the ‘weirdo’ comment and the comparison to the hangover constituted unwanted conduct which had the effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity. The Chief Officer accepted, on reflection, that his ‘weirdo’ comment was inappropriate.

The Claimant was ultimately awarded £17,154.86, comprising £15,000 for injury to feelings and the remainder for unpaid wages. The Tribunal also recommended that the Claimant be reinstated to both the open access role and the Project Worker position.

Lessons for employers
  1. Culture is key – an inclusive culture cannot be limited to the services an organisation provides, it must be reflected internally and come from the top down.
  2. Reasonable adjustments are a duty, not a favour – once an employer becomes aware that an employee has a disability and requires adjustments, they have a duty to make reasonable adjustments.
  3. A grievance may be a protected act – employers must be careful not to treat employees unfavourably because they have asserted their legal rights.
How we can help

For further information, or to discuss the issues raised within this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.

Darren Smith
Partner, Employment
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us
Isabella Milnes-James
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights

Best Law Firms 2024

Herrington Carmichael has once again been named in the Times Best Law Firms. We were first listed in 2023 and have once again made the Best Law Firms list for 2024.  

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/herrington-carmichael

Best Law Firm 2024