When a personality test labels an employee as “Darth Vader,” it may sound like harmless office humour, but for HR teams, the recent Tribunal ruling in Rooke v NHS Blood & Transplant is anything but light entertainment. The case, which awarded £29,000 to a whistleblower for detriments suffered after raising safety concerns, is a striking reminder of how missteps in communication, culture, and process can spiral into a Tribunal case. From a failed attempt to retract a resignation to a controversial Star Wars themed team exercise carried out in an employee’s absence, this judgment delivers clear lessons on protecting employee rights and avoiding seemingly small actions that carry significant legal consequences.
Background
Mrs Rooke worked at NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) from 2003 until her resignation in 2021. She worked within the Nursing Care Quality Team, a role that involved overseeing training standards and ensuring patient safety within the organisation. Over the course of her employment, Rooke raised three concerns which she claimed were protected disclosures.
The first disclosure came in March 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when Rooke posted on an internal platform to express concerns that staff lacked adequate personal protective equipment. The second occurred in June 2020, when she raised issues about potential shortcuts in training delivery that she believed could compromise patient and donor safety. The third, and most significant in the eyes of the Tribunal, occurred in May 2021, when she alerted a colleague to a critical omission in a new blood donor safety check procedure that was due to go live the following month.
From September 2020, Rooke was signed off work for six months due to low mood and anxiety, and upon her return, she felt that aspects of her role were being eroded. Although the Tribunal found that any changes in her duties were temporary responses to the pandemic, Rooke perceived this as a marginalisation of her professional standing.
In October 2021, alongside personal stress relating to caring for her mother with dementia and apprehension over an impending change at work, Rooke submitted her resignation. She later attempted to withdraw it, but NHSBT declined, stating that the recruitment process to replace her had already started, a claim the Tribunal found to be factually incorrect. NHSBT also asserted a recruitment freeze as a barrier to reinstatement but failed to provide convincing evidence of such policy.
The Darth Vader Incident
A particularly striking episode in the case involved a team building Myers-Briggs type personality assessment carried out while Rooke was absent. Rather than using Rooke’s own input, a colleague completed the assessment on her behalf. The resulting personality type was labelled “Darth Vader”, a fictional villain from the Star Wars franchise, suggesting a person who is highly focused and capable of unifying a team, but with an undeniably negative association.
This portrayal was shared in a group setting and although NHSBT attempted to frame it as a compliment, the Tribunal rejected that defence. The Tribunal found that Rooke reasonably perceived the Darth Vader as a detriment. The fact that the outcome did not reflect Rooke’s own responses, but rather someone else’s perception of her personality had exacerbated the issue. The Tribunal concluded that it was not a neutral or harmless exercise, but rather one that contributed to Rooke’s feeling of being undermined in the workplace, especially given the wider context of her protected disclosures.
These events formed the basis of her Tribunal claims, which included constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and detriment for whistleblowing.
Decision
The Tribunal upheld part of Rooke’s claim, finding that she was subjected to two key detriments.
- Failure to allow retraction of resignation – NHSBT’s refusal to accept her resignation retraction was found to be at least partly influenced by Rooke’s third protected disclosure regarding the donor safety form. The Tribunal criticised NHSBT’s communication as “odd” and lacking transparency.
- Darth Vader personality categorisation – The Tribunal ruled that assigning Rooke a Darth Vader personality type, based on someone else’s responses which were shared publicly, constituted a detriment. Despite arguments that the characterisation had positive traits, the Tribunal found it reasonable for Rooke to feel insulted, given Darth Vader’s status as a villain. The exercise was not viewed as harmless team building, but as an act that reinforced negative perceptions about Rooke.
While Rooke’s claims for constructive unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed, the Tribunal found sufficient grounds to award her £17,000 for financial losses and £12,000 for injury to feelings.
Lessons for Employers
When an employee resigns in the “heat of the moment” or during a particularly stressful time, an employer should afford the employee a reasonable period to withdraw their resignation. It is also important to consider an employee’s mental state before deciding how to proceed. An employee’s resignation should generally be taken at face value when they have used unambiguous language. However, there may be specific situations where it is necessary to examine the context in which the resignation was given and for particular care to be taken.
Employers should also ensure that they document internal processes clearly. The Tribunal criticised NHSBT for unclear and contradictory explanations regarding recruitment processes. Employers must ensure that internal decisions regarding employees are clearly documented, factually accurate and justifiable if scrutinised.
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.
