Sighing at work may be considered harassment — court ruling

Workers who sigh at their colleagues could be accused of harassment in the workplace, a judge has ruled in a landmark employment tribunal.

Software engineer Robert Watson claimed his manager’s "sighing and exaggerating exhales" were discriminatory because he had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). 

His grievances were upheld by the judge in Southampton, who ruled that using “non-verbal” expressions of disappointment or irritation can breach equality laws.

It means Mr Watson is now in line for compensation from Roke Manor Research, the company that invented the Hawk-Eye technology for sports including cricket, football and tennis.

The tribunal heard Mr Watson had joined the company in 2020 and had ADHD diagnosed two years later.

His timekeeping was “poor”, he was “easily distracted” and he had “some difficulties focusing”, the tribunal was told.

The issues first arose when Mr Watson took four days of sick leave after starting a course of medication for the condition.

Because of this absence, the boss overseeing one of Mr Watson’s projects told him that he had several days of additional work.

The manager, who was referred to at the hearing only as DT, told him: “Something’s got to change."

The identity of staff involved in the proceedings was not publicly disclosed after the company raised the issue of national security given the sensitive nature of some of the projects it was working on.

Over the subsequent weeks, the manager continued to criticise Watson and was said to have expressed “non-verbal frustration”, the tribunal was told.

He did not express this towards anyone else in the team, it was heard.

In defence, DT told the tribunal he was struggling to make adjustments for Watson in a "high pressure environment".

But evidence also showed that the manager had told the employee that he was becoming a “net detriment”.

He was said to have joked to Watson about “putting your ADHD aside for a moment”.

Mr Watson went on sick leave again in 2023 and did not return to work.

He sued for disability discrimination and was sacked at the beginning of the next year.

In the tribunal’s ruling, the judge said that “reactions from others, verbally or as a gesture, can [have] a damning effect on his self-esteem and anxiety”.

Ruling in Mr Watson’s favour, the judge, Catherine Rayner, accepted that “for DT there was a genuine source of pressure and frustration”, and added that while “this does not excuse DT’s behaviour … it does explain it”.

Judge Rayner said it was "entirely possible" that DT would not have "suffered’ from work pressure if he had taken the steps to identify adjustments required for Watson at an earlier stage and provided him support.

"It is entirely possible that DT would not have himself suffered with such work pressure and it is possible therefore that this discrimination would have been avoided."

Mr Watson’s compensation will be decided at a later date.