Karenne Sylvester Awarded £51,200 in Landmark Disability Discrimination Case Following Misgendering Incident at University of Manchester

A learning technologist at the University of Manchester, Karenne Sylvester, 56, has been awarded a substantial sum of £51,200 after an employment tribunal found in her favour on claims of discrimination arising from disability and indirect disability discrimination. The tribunal’s decision, which concluded recently with the publication of the remedy judgment, underscored the complex intersection of neurodiversity, workplace inclusion, and the rights of transgender individuals, setting a significant precedent for employers navigating these sensitive issues.

The core of the dispute revolved around Sylvester, who has dyspraxia, persistently misgendering a trans colleague, referred to as "CD," after CD’s gender transition. Sylvester successfully argued that her dyspraxia, a neurodevelopmental condition, impacted her cognitive ability to consistently remember and adapt to the pronoun changes, particularly under pressure. The employment tribunal in Manchester heard that while dyspraxia is commonly associated with motor coordination difficulties, its characteristics are far more complex, profoundly affecting how the brain processes information, including memory recall and executive function.

The Incident and Immediate Aftermath

The specific incident that precipitated the formal complaint occurred on 16 February 2023. During a meeting involving five or six other staff members, Sylvester misgendered CD. CD immediately corrected Sylvester, who then apologised, but critically, also made a comment suggesting that she would likely misgender CD again in the future and was pre-emptively apologising for those occasions. While the meeting continued, CD was later found distressed and crying. Sylvester attempted to speak with CD afterwards, but her colleague declined the interaction.

Following this incident, an investigation was initiated by the University of Manchester. During the preliminary stages, Sylvester was informed that she was no longer permitted to work in the main office, effectively isolating her from her team in the shared open-plan workspace, which typically accommodated around 40 staff members. Any time Sylvester needed to be on campus, she was instructed to book a separate back room on the same floor, specifically to avoid any physical contact with CD. Furthermore, she was explicitly prohibited from discussing the misgendering complaint with any of her colleagues, including her own line manager, a directive that would later be scrutinised by the tribunal for its impact on her ability to seek support or clarify her position.

Flawed Investigation and Escalation of Measures

The internal investigation into the complaint was led by Stuart Phillipson, CD’s line manager and e-learning manager, and Martin Banks, a lead people partner in the faculty. Crucially, the tribunal later highlighted a significant conflict of interest regarding Phillipson’s role as lead investigator, given his direct supervisory relationship with CD.

Approximately four weeks into the investigation, during a meeting, it became evident to Phillipson and Banks that Sylvester was attributing her difficulty in gendering CD correctly to her dyspraxia. The tribunal’s judgment explicitly noted, "That is exactly what they have recorded in their investigation report," confirming that the investigators were aware of the claimed link to her disability.

Despite this acknowledgment, the investigation report concluded that Sylvester had "persistently used the incorrect pronoun over a period of time" and had "unlawfully harassed" her trans colleague. The report recommended that the temporary measures isolating Sylvester should remain in place and that she should be moved to another part of the university pending "further relevant policies and procedures." Banks further indicated that the next step could involve a referral under the disciplinary process, although he noted this would be a decision for Sylvester’s line manager and other relevant parties.

The measures against Sylvester escalated on 28 April, when Phillipson informed her that she was being "stood down" from her co-lead role in a pilot study into extended reality (XR). The university maintained this action was in line with its Dignity at Work and Study (DAWS) procedure, designed to address harassment and bullying.

Appeal and Partial Vindication

Sylvester formally appealed the investigation outcome on 11 May. In July, she was interviewed for an alternative role within the university but was ultimately not selected. The appeal process culminated in September, with the appeal panel partially upholding three out of four of Sylvester’s appeal points. Significantly, the panel agreed that the initial investigation had failed to give sufficient consideration to how Sylvester’s dyspraxia might affect her ability to remember the pronoun change. The panel also found that Phillipson should not have been the lead investigator due to a lack of independence and concluded that Sylvester’s removal from her team was disproportionate.

Despite these partial concessions, the appeal panel still concluded that Sylvester had breached the DAWS policy and that CD had been subjected to harassment. This mixed outcome left Sylvester in a precarious position.

In November 2023, Sylvester suffered a fall and required hospitalisation, leading to sick leave until April 2024. She did not return to work immediately but was granted an "agreed period of absence on full pay pending the conclusion" of a mediation process. A new role was subsequently found for Sylvester within the university, which she accepted, and she continues her employment there. However, the judgment noted that while she is content with her new colleagues, Sylvester feels her "career and academic intentions have been sabotaged," and she "had very little option." It was confirmed in October 2024, as part of the mediation, that no disciplinary proceedings relating to the harassment allegation would be commenced against her.

The Tribunal’s Scathing Assessment of the Investigation

The employment tribunal delivered a critical assessment of the University of Manchester’s internal investigation processes. The judgment explicitly stated that Phillipson should never have served as the lead investigator, citing his lack of independence from both CD and Sylvester.

Furthermore, the tribunal found that the investigation report painted an unfairly negative picture of Sylvester. "Whilst the respondents say that the facts were all agreed and there was no need to interview anyone or take statements, there were some important nuances in the evidence. We find that the way the findings have been presented in the investigation report paints the worst possible picture of the claimant. They have left out details in the evidence which would have painted the claimant in a better light," the judgment read. This highlights a significant procedural failing, where a lack of thoroughness and impartiality skewed the findings against the claimant.

The panel also noted a crucial information gap: no one involved in the investigation or appeal had asked CD how many times Sylvester had misgendered them. While the tribunal ultimately found it "likely" that Sylvester had misgendered CD more than four times, they deemed it "unlikely to have been as frequently as the respondents now assert (18 times)." They did, however, conclude that, on balance, Sylvester had persistently misgendered CD.

Understanding Dyspraxia and its Impact

Dyspraxia, also known as Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD), affects approximately 5-10% of the population to varying degrees, with about 2% severely affected. While often characterised by difficulties with physical coordination, such as clumsiness or struggles with fine motor skills, its impact extends significantly into cognitive domains. Individuals with dyspraxia often experience challenges with:

• Information Processing: Difficulty integrating and responding to sensory information, leading to slower processing speeds.
• Memory: Issues with short-term memory, working memory, and retrieving information, which can make it hard to recall new names, dates, or, as in this case, new pronouns.
• Executive Function: Problems with planning, organising, sequencing tasks, and adapting to new situations or routines. This can make it difficult to consciously override ingrained habits (like using old pronouns) and implement new cognitive strategies.
• Social and Communication Skills: Difficulties interpreting non-verbal cues, maintaining conversations, or quickly adjusting communication styles.

In Sylvester’s case, the tribunal explicitly found that her use of incorrect pronouns was "because of her dyspraxia." Her condition meant "it took longer for her to consistently adopt the correct pronouns compared to a neurotypical person." This crucial finding established the direct causal link between her disability and the actions that led to the complaint, forming the basis for the discrimination claims. This highlights that for neurodivergent individuals, tasks that might seem straightforward to neurotypical people can present genuine cognitive hurdles, necessitating understanding and reasonable adjustments.

The Employment Tribunal’s Ruling and Damages

The tribunal ultimately found in favour of Sylvester’s claims of discrimination arising from disability and indirect disability discrimination. Importantly, it also found Stuart Phillipson and Martin Banks personally liable for both claims, rejecting their assertion that they believed they had acted correctly under the university’s direction. This aspect of the ruling underscores the personal accountability of managers and HR professionals in upholding anti-discrimination laws. Victimisation and harassment claims brought by Sylvester, however, failed and were dismissed.

In the remedy judgment published recently, the tribunal panel unanimously agreed on the compensation to be awarded to Sylvester. This included:

• £35,000 for injury to feelings: This sum acknowledges the emotional distress, humiliation, and damage to her dignity caused by the discriminatory actions. It also included an amount for aggravated damages, typically awarded when the respondent’s conduct has been particularly high-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive.
• £7,000 for a 20% Acas uplift: This additional amount was awarded because the University of Manchester failed to follow the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. An Acas uplift is applied when an employer has unreasonably failed to comply with the Code, demonstrating that the university’s procedural failings contributed to the severity of the case.
• £9,200 in interest: This compensates Sylvester for the delay in receiving the compensation.

The total award amounted to £51,200, a significant sum reflecting the severity and impact of the discrimination suffered.

Broader Implications for Employers and Diversity & Inclusion

This landmark ruling carries profound implications for employers across all sectors, particularly for large institutions like universities, which are often at the forefront of promoting diversity and inclusion.

1. Neurodiversity Inclusion and Reasonable Adjustments: The case powerfully highlights the need for employers to better understand and accommodate neurodivergent employees. It reinforces the duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for disabled staff. For individuals with conditions like dyspraxia, this might involve more time for processing new information, specific memory aids, clear communication strategies, or tailored support plans, especially when adapting to significant changes in workplace dynamics or social conventions. Simply expecting neurodivergent individuals to conform to neurotypical standards without support can lead to direct or indirect discrimination.

2. Balancing Competing Protected Characteristics: This case exemplifies the complex challenge of balancing the rights and protections of different groups under the Equality Act 2010. While the University of Manchester undoubtedly has a duty to protect its trans staff from harassment and misgendering, this duty must be exercised in a way that does not discriminate against neurodivergent staff who may face genuine cognitive barriers. The ruling suggests that a nuanced, empathetic, and individually tailored approach is required, rather than a blanket application of policies.

3. Impartial and Thorough Investigations: The tribunal’s strong criticism of the university’s investigation process serves as a stark warning. Employers must ensure that internal investigations into complaints of harassment or discrimination are conducted by truly independent parties, free from conflicts of interest. Investigations must be thorough, balanced, and consider all relevant evidence, including potential mitigating factors such as disability. Failure to do so can lead to an unjust outcome and expose the organisation to significant legal and financial penalties, as well as reputational damage.

4. Personal Liability for Managers: The finding that Phillipson and Banks were personally liable is a critical element. It sends a clear message to managers and HR professionals that they cannot simply claim to be following employer directives if those directives or their execution lead to discriminatory practices. Individuals in positions of authority bear personal responsibility for ensuring compliance with anti-discrimination legislation. This may lead to greater caution and a more thorough understanding of legal obligations among management.

5. Comprehensive Training and Policy Review: Universities and other large organisations will need to review and potentially revise their policies and training programs. This should include:

   • Neurodiversity Awareness Training: Educating staff, especially managers and HR, on the diverse manifestations of neurodevelopmental conditions and their potential impact in the workplace.
   • Trans Inclusion and Pronoun Usage Training: Ensuring clear guidelines are in place, but also incorporating an understanding of how cognitive differences might affect adherence for some individuals.
   • Anti-Discrimination Law Training: Reinforcing the principles of the Equality Act 2010, particularly regarding intersectional discrimination and the duty of reasonable adjustment.
   • Investigation Best Practices: Training for those conducting internal investigations on impartiality, evidence gathering, and due process.

The University of Manchester, as a prominent educational institution, will undoubtedly face pressure to demonstrate how it will learn from this judgment. While committed to fostering an inclusive environment, this case underscores that achieving true inclusion requires deep understanding, flexible policies, and rigorously fair processes that account for the full spectrum of human diversity, including neurodiversity. This ruling serves as a timely reminder that navigating the complexities of modern workplace inclusion demands not just good intentions, but also robust, legally compliant, and empathetically applied systems.