Published on 12, July, 2020
Hi,
Sorry, this is a bit long but I need to explain the context of my role.
I'm an older man who works as a nurse for a private company. I don't work directly with patients in clinical settings any more, instead I help NHS clinicians understand the service the company provides, carry out training, deal with difficult patient issues amongst other things.
My reputation with the NHS is extremely good as I'm very honest with them in a way the company isn't. I know this from verbal feedback I get from the NHS staff.
It was like having a work appraisal with a large audience, it was all sudden and shocking to me. They had done the same to a colleague of mine during a similar meeting via MS Teams which was bad enough but mine was a face to face meeting. He was very angry too.
I've been engraged and deeply upset since this happened 3 days ago. I can't stop thinking about it. I feel publicly humiliated. Because of perseveration it's playing on a loop inside of my head, round and round, the humiliation and anger won't stop. I feel like a child, my emotions battering me.
I feel that what they did was deeply unprofessional and any 'faults' with my performance should have been brought to me in private and done professionally, not as a sudden reveal in front of fellow nurses from the NHS.
Can anyone help me with the following;
Has anybody had a similar experience of employers blindsiding them in public with criticism?
Does the equality act apply here?
Does it cross the threshold of my protected traits?
Thanks
Well it doesn't sound profesional.
The issue from an equality act point of view is whether it's also discrimination. The difrent types os discrimination are set out between sections 13-27:
Doing a quick process of elimination 16-18 I assume are unlikely to apply. 27 is unlikely because you've not complained of it yet.
13-14 would only apply if you had been singeled out for poor treatment directly because of a protected charicteristic.
15 would only apply if their negative treatment of you was caused in some indirect way by your disability ... for instance if the negative feedback you recived was caused by your disability. This also requirse the people mistreating you to have prior knowledge of your disability
19 applies to situation where there is a rule or polocy that applies people in general but that disadvantages a group with a protected charicteristic. So I guess you would have to argue that it is harder for autistic people than non autistic people to get feedback this way. Also they have a chance to justify it as nessicery (but the test for nessicery is rather strict).
20-22 This is the go to for most work place issue with disability and works quite similarly to 19 but the tests are a bit difrent. Basicly if they have a polocy or practice that puts you at a disadvantage compared to a non disabeled person they are requred to take resonable steps to avoid the disadvantage ... resonable is based on the courts opinion. Some lawyers seem to feel the resonableness test is tougher on employers than the justifiability test but really that's case by case. They also have a 'we didn't know they were disabeled' defence.
26 Harasment is when they 'violate your dignity', or 'creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you.' And the act in question has to be unwanted and related to a relevant protected characteristic. The definition of 'related to' can be a little murky. For example was the critacism of you basicly them critacising your autistic trates? And if so was this resonable because there is a resonableness defence open to them.
You might want to check out this website https://www.stammeringlaw.org.uk or the official EHRC guide https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2021/employment-code-of-practice.docx And remember this is not legal advice. I'm just a dude on the internet directing you to resorces.