WHERE DISABILITY AND DISCIPLINARY COLLIDE
The recent investigation into Gregg Wallace’s conduct during his time on MasterChef has sent ripples through HR and legal circles. Of 83 allegations reviewed, 45 were upheld against Wallace, including findings of inappropriate sexual comments, being in a state of undress and unwelcome physical contact.
Wallace, who was recently diagnosed with autism, has argued that his neurodivergence contributed to his behaviour and that Masterchef did not do enough to protect him. The Equality Act 2010 is clear: sexual is unlawful, and employers must do more to protect employees from it. Autism does not excuse misconduct, but it may be a relevant factor when considering how an employee navigates social expectations or perceived bluntness.
“Employers must tread carefully. Dismissing a neurodivergent employee without considering how their condition may have influenced their actions could amount to disability discrimination.”
Employers must tread carefully. Dismissing a neurodivergent employee without considering how their condition may have influenced their actions could amount to disability discrimination. But that’s not to say that this creates a “free pass” for misconduct to go unmanaged.
This scandal is also another example of when notoriously bad behaviour is overlooked – and exactly why the government has brought in further measures for employers to help protect workers from harassment. The Wallace case also underscores the importance of culture. Many complainants said they didn’t feel safe speaking up at the time and that complaints were dismissed or brushed off when raised.
Key lessons to be learned from this case:
1. Risk assess your workforce
Consider pockets where there is an imbalance in power between key players and the support team. Tackle this head on by creating spaces for more junior colleagues to raise concerns in a psychologically safe environment.
2. Act robustly, and act early
Zero tolerance attitudes to discrimination cannot be maintained by lip service alone, and expectations of conduct should be reinforced – whether through training or reminding of standards. Employers have a duty of care, which means that informal mentions of concerning behaviour cannot be disregarded when discovered.
3. Factor in occupational health
It can be a useful tool when it comes to any investigation, given the stress that naturally accompanies any process. If a potential disability is a factor, consider how this contributes to the behaviours (if at all) and if any adjustments would prevent the risk of harassment. This will be a balancing act that will be case-dependant, but demonstrating that this has been assessed in reaching a decision will be an employer’s best defence to a disability discrimination allegation.
