.svg)
Sighing in frustration at a colleague in the workplace could be a violation of equality laws, according to a recent employment tribunal ruling.
The judgment found that nonverbal signs of irritation—such as sighing or exaggerated exhaling—can potentially amount to discrimination, particularly when directed toward someone with a disability.
The case involved Robert Watson, a UK-based software engineer who successfully brought a disability discrimination claim against his employer, Roke Manor Research, the tech firm behind the Hawk-Eye ball tracking technology used in major sporting events like Wimbledon, international cricket, and football.
Watson joined the Hampshire-based company in August 2020. According to the tribunal in Southampton, he exhibited difficulties with punctuality, concentration, and focus—symptoms later linked to ADHD, which he wasn’t formally diagnosed with until November 2022. Following his diagnosis, Watson began medication and took a brief four-day sick leave.
Upon returning, Watson was informed by a project technical lead—referred to as DT in tribunal documents due to national security concerns surrounding the company's projects—that extra work had accumulated during his absence. Over the following weeks, DT continued to criticize him, including questioning his work hours and time spent at his desk. Watson also reported that DT frequently displayed frustration through nonverbal gestures like sighing and exaggerated exhalations.
Watson went on sick leave in February 2023 due to work-related stress and did not return. He filed his discrimination claim in May and was dismissed by the company in January 2024.
The tribunal ruled that DT’s behavior constituted disability discrimination. Employment Judge Catherine Rayner concluded that the manager’s expressions of frustration were tied to Watson’s ADHD-related challenges, such as his timekeeping and work habits. The judge added that had the company acted sooner to assess and implement appropriate workplace adjustments, the situation—and the resulting discrimination—might have been avoided.
Although other elements of Watson’s claim, including additional allegations of discrimination and unfair dismissal, were dismissed, he is now entitled to compensation, the amount of which will be determined later.
