By Neil Guss Regional Employment Rights Manager &
James Tinston Employment Rights Lawyer
Overview
This case dealt with a bus driver’s successful claim of disability-related harassment. While the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld parts of the original tribunal decision, it found flaws in how the tribunal dealt with alleged harassment by managers, leading to a partial remittal. However, findings of harassment by route controllers stood and the claimant remained entitled to compensation.
Background
Mr Sener worked as a bus driver for London United Busways. He had a urinary condition requiring frequent toilet breaks—around every 30 minutes. Though the company made some route adjustments, he faced repeated questioning by managers and route controllers about his use of toilet facilities and driving times. He said these interactions embarrassed him and made him feel singled out. After filing grievances internally, Mr Sener brought a claim for disability discrimination, including harassment, under the Equality Act 2010.
Employment Tribunal and EAT Decisions
- Disability Harassment Established (in part): The Employment Tribunal upheld Mr Sener’s complaint that he was harassed due to his disability. It found that repeated questioning by both managers and controllers about his toilet breaks, despite knowledge of his medical condition, had a humiliating effect. Even if there was no malicious intent, the tribunal agreed the impact on Mr Sener was enough to meet the legal threshold for harassment.
- EAT Challenge on Manager Conduct: The employer appealed, arguing that meetings with managers were routine and shouldn’t be classed as harassment. The EAT agreed in part, finding the tribunal hadn’t properly explained why Mr Sener’s perception of two specific meetings—as distressing—was reasonable. One meeting, in January 2019, wasn’t even about toilet use, and the EAT said it should have been removed from the list of harassing incidents. That part of the case was sent back to the same tribunal for review.
- Controller Interactions Upheld: However, the EAT supported the tribunal’s findings on the conduct of the route controllers, including their radio messages and failure to adjust to Mr Sener’s needs. The EAT noted that internal communication breakdowns meant controllers weren’t aware of his condition. The tribunal had been right to see this as contributing to the distress Mr Sener experienced.
Key Takeaways
- Harassment can occur even without intent: Managers and supervisors don’t need to act maliciously for their conduct to amount to harassment if it has a humiliating or degrading effect on the worker.
- Medical conditions must be communicated effectively: Employers must ensure that all relevant staff are aware of workers’ medical needs to prevent misunderstandings and inappropriate questioning.
- Duty to avoid unnecessary embarrassment: Repeated questioning about known medical needs can be seen as harassment—especially when it makes someone feel singled out or embarrassed at work.
- Appeals don’t always overturn everything: Even where some findings are challenged, parts of the original decision (like the treatment by route controllers) may still stand
