Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Whistleblower the wise? Thought not, it’s not one the Empire would tell you…
Well, a not-so-long time ago, in a not-so-far away galaxy (the UK to be specific), an NHS worker found themselves compared to one of the most iconic Sith Lords ever to terrorise the silver screen…that is, of course..Darth Vader. This intergalactic insult ultimately led the employee to receive nearly £30,000 compensation, after a duel with the Employment tribunal (AKA the Jedi Council). But how did a Star Wars comparison lead to nearly £30k compensation?
A disturbance of the force of law, do you feel? Well, I wouldn’t be surprised. Headlines floating around this case heavily imply the NHS worker received £30,000 solely because they were compared to a Sabre-wielding, force-using, all commanding icon, and lest we forget, ultimate saviour of the entire galaxy. If that is believed, then even Vader himself would find your lack of investigative skills disturbing. Let’s unpack what’s really gone on here.
The Claimant, Lorna Rooke, worked for the NHS from 2003 to 2021 and brought 3 main claims against her employer:
To cut a long story short, the first two claims failed, so, this article will largely focus on the third claim, which has attracted media attention.
Lorna raised concerns to her employer on May 20, 2021, about the Donor Safety Check (DSC) form used by the NHS. Lorna noted the form didn’t ask donors if they themselves had symptoms or treatment for specific conditions. She noted this potentially posed a health and safety risk. In legal terms, this is known as a “protected disclosure” under the Employment Rights Act 1996 or more commonly referred to as ‘blowing the whistle’. After she made this disclosure, she allegedly received unpleasant treatment from her colleagues and employer.
Judge Kathyrn Ramsen labelled one of the treatments she faced as…the ”Darth Vader Incident”.
The NHS team took a Myer-Briggs personality questionnaire with a Star Wars theme. Each team member was to take the test which would align them with a character from the Star Wars universe. Lorna’s colleague took the test on her behalf when Lorna was out of the room, and Lorna was labelled, as Darth Vader.
On the test results, the Darth Vader individual was described as a “very focused individual who brings the team together”. Judge Kathryn Ramsden said:
“Darth Vader is a legendary villain of the Star Wars series, and being aligned with his personality is insulting”.
While the comparison may have amused, or even been received as a compliment to some Star Wars fanatics, given her colleague, rather than Lorna herself, filled out the test, based on the perception of the claimant and then shared with the group, it was accepted that this upset the claimant and made her feel unpopular, which was one of the reasons she resigned.
Significantly, the tribunal commented that given Lorna’s previous protected disclosure, the comparison to Vader could reasonably be viewed as a negative association.
1) Claim of constructive unfair dismissal – claim dismissed
Notably, the Tribunal found that Lorna’s resignation didn’t meet the threshold for constructive unfair dismissal because her employer’s action (including the Vader incident) didn’t constitute a fundamental breach of contract. The tribunal noted that Lorna did engage with colleagues after the incidents.
2) Direct Disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments – claim dismissed
3) Detriment on the Ground of Protected Disclosure – partially upheld
The tribunal did conclude that being labelled as Darth Vader, given his largely villain-esque reputation, could reasonably be considered a detriment. This caused the claimant harm as she suffered from low mood and anxiety in relation to her work environment, and so was awarded compensation.
Context is very important, and although from an outsider’s perspective this may be perceived as a ‘joke’ or ‘light-hearted fun’, this case offers an important lesson for employers. It highlights how actions meant even in jest can be perceived as negative and considered a detriment, especially after an employee has blown the whistle and made a protected disclosure. Even if you consider it not to be a protected disclosure, it still matters, and any such complaints should be taken seriously, investigated and documented.
Employers need to understand the importance of workplace culture, having appropriate processes and procedures (which staff are aware of and are enforced) and taking staff wellbeing seriously.
Being compared to an iconic villain might seem like a joke, but for Lorna Rooke, it was anything but. As the wise Yoda once said (allegedly), jokes lead to misunderstandings, misunderstandings lead to conflict, conflict leads to tribunal claims, and tribunal claims lead to £30,000 compensation.
This case should serve as a lesson for employers to take extra precautions on how protected disclosures are handled, to communicate with emotional intelligence, as we remember – even space lords have feelings.
Employers and employees alike, may the force be with you.
To book an appointment or to discuss this further, please contact Louise Brenlund [email protected] 01732 770660.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published. We do not accept responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the information in this article.
