If you’re unsure whether your management training or workplace culture is compliant, complete the contact form below for support from our legal experts.
Watson v Roke Manor Research Ltd shows how non-verbal managerial behaviour can amount to discrimination and have legal risks for employers.
30 June 2025
Case Study
An Employment Tribunal has found that a manager sighing in frustration amounted to harassment of an employee with ADHD. This is a really timely reminder of the importance of management training and, in particular, how non-verbal and more subtle behaviours can amount to unlawful acts.
Mr Watson was employed by Roke Manor Research Limited as a software engineer in 2020, receiving a formal diagnosis of ADHD in 2022.
His symptoms meant he had difficulty with timekeeping and he sometimes struggled to focus. His manager often displayed signs of irritation with him, such as sighing exaggeratedly. When he took a short absence, he was met with criticism from his manager who, again, exhaled dramatically and referred to him as a “net detriment” to the team. Mr Watson became stressed and anxious and was signed off ill and later dismissed.
Case Study
The ET found that the actions of his manager had amounted to discrimination because they were connected to aspects of Mr Watson’s condition. This is perhaps what we would view as “subtle aggression” and was not about what was said to him, but the body language displayed.
The employee met the definition of disabled as set down by the Equality Act 2010. He was successful in establishing (a) that there was a failure to make reasonable adjustments (b) that he had been subject to harassment related to his disability and (c) discrimination arising from a disability.
The Judge noted that there was a lack of training and support available and a suggestion that neurodiversity was either misunderstood or not recognised. In particular, whilst the manager was under pressure and found the issue to be a source of genuine frustration, this did not excuse his treatment of Mr Watson.
Importantly, the ET criticised the employer for not looking into the causes of the issues- i.e. his poor timekeeping and absence. This was poor management and WOULD HAVE allowed them to find out what was going on and work out how to deal with it. Had they identified what adjustments could have been made, they could have supported both Mr Watson and his manager and thus avoided the pressure and frustration that led to the discriminatory behaviour. In short, it would have meant a better outcome all around.
This case tells us a number of things. It may come as a surprise to some employers that ADHD is a form of disability covered by the Equality Act – this is a problem as failure to realise this means that you cannot adequately train managers to look out for the signs.
In this case, steps should have been taken to identify the cause of the issues. Instead, matters escalated with no intervention or constructive support for either employee or manager.
Better training is required to teach staff about the importance of good management and avoiding gestures like eye rolling and exaggerated sighing. These are never signs of good people management and, in this case, amounted to unlawful harassment.
Staff need to be aware of the connotations carried by their tone, their facial expressions and their body language when dealing with their colleagues, especially those over whom they have managerial responsibility.
Non-verbal cues can also be more significant for people who are neurodiverse, and this needs to be recognised. Think about your understanding of what a hostile working environment might look like – for everyone. Remember that it is not a question of intent, but rather how the behaviour is perceived. An inclusive workplace should work to eradicate hostility, even in more subtle forms.
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More