An employment tribunal has ruled that describing an employee’s work as “messy” and suggesting improvement is not harassment or discrimination, even if the individual has a disability.
The case involved Thomas Shevlin, a senior HR operations manager at publishing firm John Wiley & Sons, who alleged that his manager’s feedback had been discriminatory due to his ADHD and traits of dyslexia. He argued that the comments left him “humiliated and ashamed” and led to his resignation. Shevlin claimed the remarks constituted harassment and brought a disability discrimination claim against his former employer.
However, the tribunal found that the comments made by his manager, Rebecca Roycroft, were intended to support his development and did not meet the threshold for harassment. Employment judge David Massarella added that employers must be able to point out weaknesses without facing legal consequences, particularly when the intention is constructive.
Feedback given in context of performance
The tribunal heard that Shevlin began his role in May 2022 and did not disclose his ADHD or dyslexia traits to the company. In a performance assessment in May 2023, Roycroft noted that Shevlin tended to make errors when busy and working quickly. She described issues such as typos, misused capitalisation and sentences that lacked clarity. She explained that while she understood the cause, the resulting impression could affect Shevlin’s “personal brand” with stakeholders.
The tribunal accepted that Roycroft’s feedback was aimed at helping Shevlin improve his written communication, which was relevant to his professional responsibilities. Judge Massarella stated, “The making of spelling and grammar errors in professional documents is, self-evidently, a weakness.”
The panel further concluded that the comments were not personal attacks but rather observations on work quality. “We are satisfied that Ms Roycroft’s intention or purpose in making the comment was exclusively directed at assisting [Mr Shevlin] to improve and to eliminate a relatively minor weakness in his performance,” the ruling said.
Constructive intent
In his claim, Shevlin said the feedback devastated him and that he resigned as a result. However, the tribunal doubted this account, noting that he had already secured alternative employment by the time he left. It determined that the resignation was not directly caused by the feedback in question.
“We think that unlikely,” the panel stated. “In short, Ms Roycroft’s comments do not begin to approach the very high threshold for harassment.”
The tribunal noted that Shevlin had not made his employer aware of his ADHD or dyslexia traits, which limited the company’s ability to make adjustment, and that the intent behind Roycroft’s comments was constructive rather than critical or hostile.
Judge Massarella added, “We consider that [his] response, and that sense of grievance, to be unjustified having regard to these anodyne comments,” he said. “If a manager cannot be explicit about a weakness in performance, there is a risk that an entirely well meant warning will not be taken onboard by the employee.”
