A colleague took a personality test based on their view of the claimant and described her as ‘Darth Vader.’ This was seen as a detriment linked to a protected disclosure the claimant had made.

The claimant started working for the respondent in 2003 and moved into a role in the Education and Training department. There was a restructuring and the claimant was upgraded from Band 4 to Band 5. This took place in 2018 and it was not long after that the claimant resigned in September 2021 saying her job role began to be eroded. 

A series of issues arose between the period in 2020 and 2021 including the claimant being unfit for work due to low mood and stress. The difficulties at work were also matched with difficulties at home with the claimant stating that she could not cope with the madness at work and home. On return to work the issues persisted and at a team meeting the claimant was heard to comment that she wanted to retire and that she ‘couldn’t be arsed anymore’.  This led to a call to check on the claimant’s wellbeing where the claimant outlined how she felt her suggestions were not valued and had no job satisfaction. She had also outlined some issues within the workplace relating to the requirements when it comes to blood donation.

In August 2021 there was team building exercise with the members of the team completing a personality-type questionnaire with a Star Wars theme.  The claimant did not participate but another member of staff had completed it on her behalf with the outcome being Darth Vader.  The claimant subsequently resigned in September 2021 citing personal circumstances.

The claimant brought a series of claims relating to unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and detriment. The claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were dismissed but the focus centred upon the detriment claim relating to the personality test.  It was held by the Judge that the claimant being told that she had the same personality as a legendary villain would reasonably be taken as an insult and that harm is experienced and it would amount to a workplace detriment. It was not solely because of the outcome of the test but rather because it was a colleague who had entered in her perception of the claimant’s personality rather than the personality doing a self-reflection. However, it was insufficient for it to amount to a fundamental breach of contract. When the test was taken alongside the fact that the claimant had made some protected disclosures it did mean it was a detriment sufficient to allow for a claim.

This case gained some media attention largely because it gets attention with the mention of Darth Vader comparison and a monetary award. However, as with all of those situations, there is much more nuance to the matter. There had been a long-running issue within the workplace leading to some protected disclosures and there was a link between those and the test being completed on the claimant’s behalf – that was such to lead to a detriment and a successful claim here.

You can read the case in full here.