Lorna Rooke, who worked as an NHS blood donation worker, brought a multi-part complaint to the employment tribunal.
The complaint included claims for constructive unfair dismissal (alleging that her role was eroded and she was asked to deliver sub-par training), that there was direct disability discrimination (claiming to be treated less favourably due to her anxiety, and not having a request to rescind resignation accepted), failure to make reasonable adjustments, and that there were protected disclosure detriments centring on health and safety.
The part of the complaint that has driven media attention is that a colleague filled out a Star Wars-themed Myers-Briggs test behind Rooke's back, which ended up with her being categorised as Darth Vader.
Judge Kathryn Ramsden, who ruled on this case, said that being told you have the same personality as a legendary villain is an insult, meaning that harm is experienced and it's a workplace detriment.
The judge ruled that the constructive unfair dismissal claim failed, and dismissed the direct disability claim, as well as the failure to make reasonable adjustments. The detriment on the ground that Rooke had made one or more protected disclosures, was upheld.
Many of the disputed details of the case centred on communication channels, consideration of flexibility, and of how the employer handled the employee's wellbeing.
Read more: Scottish postman loses accent discrimination tribunal
For Gemma Dale, senior HR lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University, the case highlights the incumbent risk of so-called lighthearted activity.
She told HR magazine: “Using themed tests like this one, even if intended to be lighthearted, might not be the best of ideas, especially if they have the potential to cause offence, as they did in this case.”
Dale added that there are problems around whether Myers-Briggs testing is useful, and that HR professionals may want to monitor workplace culture and behaviours, so that claims like this don’t arise.
She said: “In practice, rarely does one event lead to a legal claim. It is often part of a series of events or issues that have culminated in employees feeling like they had to act.”
Emily Bennett, HR consultant at workplace consultancy AdviserPlus, said that the case highlights the need for HR to understand the legal consequences of all workplace actions, whether protected disclosure or general culture.
Speaking to HR magazine, she said: “When someone raises a protected disclosure, it has to be taken seriously. If it’s a protected disclosure, it carries legal weight, but even if it’s not, it still matters.
“It’s a sign that something isn’t right. Concerns raised about health and safety, inadequate training, or other risks to the organisation must be thoroughly investigated and appropriately responded to.”
Read more: Worker harassed for side hustle wins £22,000 tribunal claim
As part of the tribunal focussed on a question of workplace anxiety, stress and disability, Bennett described the case as another reminder that wellbeing assessments can’t simply be administrative.
She added: “If they're treated as a tick-box exercise, they fail to address the real issues, and can leave employees feeling ignored or dismissed.
“Action planning and meaningful follow up are essential. Documentation and audit trails matter for legal protection, and to clearly show what was done, when, and why.
“When you look at the details surrounding the resignation, it's clear this employee has been having a difficult time, both in work and out of work, for an ongoing period: a more thoughtful approach [was] needed.”
When the case is taken as a whole, Bennett added, it shows the need for HR to build a workplace culture of safety where people feel they can highlight concerns.
She said: “The takeaway for HR is to make sure the organisation doesn’t just have the right policies, but that those policies are lived, day to day, in the way people are treated.”
