A receptionist who could not pronounce a law firm’s long name has had her claim for disability discrimination thrown out.
The temp, identified only as Miss J Earle, moaned that Wykeham-Hurford Sheppard & Son was “a difficult name to repeat over the phone”, an employment tribunal heard.
Judge Callum Cowx agreed that the firm’s name was “certainly something of a mouthful”, but “did not agree that it was a difficult or unreasonable task for a receptionist to perform”.
Miss Earle repeatedly transferred calls to the law firm’s director Sally Reeve and senior partners, the hearing was told. She had an “inability to say the firm’s name when answering the phone to clients”, complaining to Mrs Reeve that “it was a difficult name to repeat over the phone”, the tribunal heard.
Her temporary role was terminated just eight days after she started work at the office in Chislehurst, south-east London, in June 2022.
Representing herself, she brought claims including disability discrimination, failure by her employer to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to her disability, which comprised of back, shoulder and neck pain.
But Judge Cowx, sitting with a panel, found she did not meet the statutory definition of disability, failed to make the firm aware of her disability and was not discriminated against or subject to harassment.
‘Obvious shortcomings’
The panel said Miss Earle’s refusal to accept “her own obvious shortcomings” contributed to her failure. It added: “A new member of staff could have overcome the problem by practice or having the name to hand, in writing, when answering the phone, but for whatever reason Miss Earle was unable to answer the phone to the respondent’s satisfaction.”
The tribunal, held remotely from Croydon, south London, heard Miss Earle was asked to arrive on her first day at 9.30am, but turned up early at 9am. She was met by Mrs Reeve and shortly afterwards, Miss Earle took it upon herself to tidy up leaves that had blown in from the road outside, it was said.
Mrs Reeve was said to have told her not to worry about the leaves because the firm had a cleaner, but Miss Earle allegedly ignored her boss and took a Henry vacuum cleaner from the staff kitchen.
The vacuum cleaner did not have a pole attachment, which meant Miss Earle had to bend down to collect the leaves, the tribunal heard.
Miss Earle also claimed she was asked to move boxes of photocopying paper, prompting her to tell Mrs Reeve that she had a bad back. But Mrs Reeve denied ever being told Miss Earle had mobility problems at any point during her brief period with the firm.
The panel ordered Miss Earle to pay her £10 deposit to bring her case against Wykeham-Hurford Sheppard & Son to the law firm after her claims were dismissed. Wykeham-Hurford Sheppard & Son said she could not perform the role to the required standard.