An HMRC employee who complained after her boss sent her a birthday card when she said she did not want to celebrate that the opportunity won £ 25,000 for intimidation.
Kani Toure was sick of work-related stress when she 'clearly explained' that she wanted correspondence to be kept to a minimum and heard an employment tribunal via e-mail.
But even though she explicitly told her manager that she did not want to mark her anniversary, she still received a birthday card.
A judge concluded that this was 'undesirable behavior' and that the 'repeated contact' that she received while he was sick was intimidation, adding that HMRC's duty of care would have been 'more effectively observed by complying with its wishes'.
After winning ten claims of intimidation and discrimination against racing and disabled people, Mrs. Toure has now received £ 25.251.62 in compensation, including £ 20,000 for injuries to feelings.
The tribunal in South London heard Mrs. Toure – who is a French national of African descent and Muslim – started working as a customer service at the Croydon office in October 2019.
In March 2020, because of Covid, she started working from home.
The case was heard on Croydon Employment Tribunal, South London
In July 2020, after difficulties claiming utility costs, she told Boss Hugh Henderson via e -mail for which she was discriminated against, “mainly because of my foreign accent and origin,” although this was ignored.
Then, on Mrs Tour's first birthday during her time who worked there – on August 2, 2020 – he said in a meeting that it was her birthday.
“At that time he had a practice to keep a list of the birthdays of each member of his team on it,” heard the tribunal.
'His proof was that he would use the list to wish members of his team a happy birthday, and if it was a' special 'birthday, he would arrange a map of the entire team.
“His proof was that more than half of the team leaders would have done similar things at that time.”
The next day Mrs. Toure sent him an e -mail and said that although it had been 'very nice', she did not celebrate for 'personal reasons' and asked her details to get a birthday list what they were.
Henderson apologized and explained that he would remove her birthday from his list.
By September 2020, the Tribunal heard that Mrs. Toure had the feeling that she was 'omitted' of training options compared to her colleagues and submitted an informal complaint that she later said to be dealt with as a complaint.
In November 2020 she submitted a formal 11 -pages long complaint that contained 'a number of allegations against a series of colleagues'.
As a result, she was transferred to the Canary Wharf office of HMRC for six months on a temporary basis. It was heard that she was told that she should withdraw her complaint if she wanted the transfer to be made permanently.
In June 2021 she saw the health of the profession, where a report discovered that the tumor ensured that her pituitary gland produced too much of a hormone that is called prolactine and that migraine could activate.
The panel heard the report that they suffered from symptoms of stress, anxiety, migraine, dizziness, weight loss, poor sleep and low mood.
She was then on sick leave from 30 June 2021.
The tribunal heard that Mrs. Toure asked that correspondence would only be done as 'essential' – and was performed by e -mail, because interactions made her 'emotional'.
In the following month, however, she received 11th emails to check if she was 'good' and a birthday card.
Because Mrs. Toure had been transferred to another team with a new manager, Mr Henderson had not had the opportunity to inform her new boss about her birthday wishes.
As a result, she received a birthday card in August 2021 – something that the panel heard 'always' happened with members of her new team.
The panel heard that this 'repeated contact' had 'worsened' its symptoms.
Mrs Toure remained absent from work until she received a letter in November 2021, and warned her that she “experienced formal steps with regard to her absenteeism.”
Mrs. Toure then took HMRC to the tribunal and made more than 20 accusations of race and intimidation of the disabled, as well as discrimination and victimization.
Ten of her claims were successful.
Judge Adam Leith said: “[HMRC]'s behavior, in repeatedly contacting [Ms Toure] During the start of her absence of diseases, unwanted was.
'She had asked to limit correspondence to a minimum and only be per e -mail.
'Although she could have been more proactive in reporting her absence, she had clearly explained why she wanted correspondence to a minimum.
“The birthday card was also unwanted, in the sense that she had told Mr Henderson that she didn't want her birthday to be marked.”
The judge said that the 'repeated contact' has created a 'hostile and intimidating environment' for her.
'[Ms Toure]have asked [HMRC] To minimize correspondence, contact was then contacted 11 times in a period of three weeks – on average more than once every other day.
'In our opinion, it is impossible to separate the treatment (continues to contact Mrs Tour repeatedly, even though she was not asked) from the fact that she was absent for a reason that was linked to her handicap.
'[HMRC]The explanation for the treatment was that they (essentially) had a duty of care [Ms Toure] And had to check her well -being.
“We have some doubts about that.
'In the circumstances, [HMRC]At first glance, the duty of care would be observed more effectively by complying with its wishes expressed. '
The judge said that Mr. Toure had fallen victim to Mr Henderson when her complaints were 'ignored' and said that the offer of a permanent transfer in exchange for the withdrawal of her grievances amounted to racing intimidation.
Mrs Toure also won a claim of intimidation of the disabled after an HMRC report claimed that her complaints were 'unfounded' and 'made as a result of the medication she took for her tumor'.
She also won a claim of discrimination against the disabled after she was told that 'formal action' would be taken about her continuous absenteeism.
