Social worker sacked after being called 'passive aggressive' for eating crisps and looking away from the camera in a disciplinary hearing loses discrimination claim
- Lancashire County Council social worker Lucy Singleton sued for discrimination
- She claimed she was called 'passive aggressive' for eating during a disciplinary
- Her claim that she did so because of pregnancy nausea was however dismissed
A social worker tried to sue for discrimination after her boss called her 'passive aggressive' for eating a packet of crisps during a disciplinary hearing.
Lucy Singleton's behaviour - which included her repeatedly turning away from the camera while her boss spoke - was branded 'disrespectful' by management who were sanctioning her for falsifying records in relation to a child under her supervision.
The council worker, who fell pregnant during the investigation, claimed she tucked into the snack because she felt 'nauseous' and said she did not 'deserve' to be called passive aggressive.
After 'serious concerns' were raised about her work, Ms Singelton was sacked resulting in her bringing claims of harassment, sex discrimination and pregnancy discrimination to an employment tribunal.
But these were all dismissed by an employment judge who said none of her complaints were well-founded - and that she was called 'passive aggressive' as a result of her behaviour and not her pregnancy.
Lancashire County Council social worker Lucy Singleton sued after her boss called her 'passive aggressive' for eating crisps during a disciplinary hearing. Pictured: Lancashire County hall
The tribunal in Manchester heard Ms Singleton was employed as a social worker in Lancashire County Council's Emergency Duty Team in early 2015.
The Preston-based team work out of hours to respond to situations that arise after social workers who work during the days finish their shifts.
They deal with child protection and adult safeguarding issues and work through the night on weekdays, and weekends.
A disciplinary hearing arose as a result of concerns raised by Sue Scotland - practice manager of the team - regarding Ms Singleton's conduct during a weekend shift in October 2019.
The social worker had arranged a strategy discussion with the police on a childcare case to agree on a safeguarding plan, but this meeting did not happen.
Ms Singleton made a record on the system that she had attempted to call the police, but Ms Scotland could find no evidence that this had been done.
The matter was escalated and it was decided that the concern should be looked at under the disciplinary procedures.
An investigation into the matter found Ms Singleton to be 'persistently dishonest' in her explanations as to why no call was made.
The tribunal said Ms Singleton was not pregnant when the disciplinary investigation began, but was expecting by the time of the disciplinary hearing.
A disciplinary hearing was held in July 2020 by video conference and was conducted by Andy Smith, the Head of Service for Safeguarding Inspection and Audit for the local authority.
The tribunal accepted evidence that during the meeting, Ms Singleton 'purposely' turned sideways and looked away when Ms Scotland came online to give evidence.
The panel noted that every now and then, the social worker would turn her head back towards the camera to challenge what was being said.
Mr Smith perceived this as 'aggressive behaviour' while Ms Scotland found it to be 'disrespectful'.
The tribunal said: 'At one point, whilst Sue Scotland was giving evidence and [Ms Singleton] was turned away sideways, [Ms Singleton] started eating a bag of crisps.
'Mr Smith told [her] that she should turn around and listen to what was being said.'
After the meeting, Ms Singleton alleged the reason why she was eating the bag of crisps was because she felt nauseous due to her pregnancy.
But, this was written some time after the hearing and the panel said she did not say anything about feeling nauseous or unwell during the meeting itself.
In an email to her trade union representative, the social worker said 'I don't think I deserved to be called passive aggressive' in relation to a comment made by Mr Smith during the disciplinary hearing.
While the head of safeguarding could not recall using these words, the tribunal found he did call Ms Singleton 'passive aggressive' due to 'the behaviour he observed at the meeting'.
Lucy Singleton's claims were all dismissed by an employment judge who said none of her complaints were well-founded - and that she was called 'passive aggressive' as a result of her behaviour and not her pregnancy
The social worker was handed a written warning.
Seniors at the local authority asked to meet with Ms Singleton days after the hearing in the hopes of 'drawing a line' under the matters.
During this meeting, Ms Singleton said she was being 'bullied' by Ms Scotland and the social worker said it was here that she was 'cruelly informed' that her colleagues did not like to work with her.
It was heard that management described Ms Singleton as being 'challenging and confrontational' when offering feedback and that the social worker's colleagues believed she recorded information about them to put 'a negative slant on team practice'.
In March 2022, a fact-finding meeting was held into Ms Singleton's conduct after colleagues complained she was uncontactable at times during night shifts.
The hearing was also held to explore 'serious concerns' over another case the social worker oversaw during a weekend shift.
This escalated to another disciplinary meeting in which the social worker was dismissed with immediate effect in September, 2022.
A number of allegations were upheld including how Ms Singleton failed to follow management instructions in supporting service users in crisis, would make 'disparaging remarks' about management, and was dishonest in her actions.
They said her behaviour had the potential to place service users at risk of harm.
The social worker took the local authority to an employment tribunal, alleging pregnancy discrimination, harassment and sex discrimination among other claims.
In relation to the 'passive aggressive' comment, Ms Singleton - who represented herself - argued in her closing submissions that her behaviours during the July 2020 meeting were as a result of her pregnancy.
Employment Judge Hilary Slater said: 'We were satisfied, as a matter of fact, that calling [Ms Singleton] 'passive aggressive' was in response to [her] conduct.
'There was nothing to alert the [local authority] that the turning away from the camera and eating crisps during the meeting was related to the [Ms Singleton's] pregnancy.
'She did not inform [the panel] she was tired and nauseous and needed a break'
Ms Singleton's claims of harassment related to sex and direct sex discrimination were dismissed.
Her complaints of pregnancy discrimination and harassment relating to the 'passive aggressive' comment were presented out of time meaning the tribunal were unable to make a judgment on them.
But, the tribunal noted that had this been presented in time - the 'complaint would have failed on its merits' as she did not prove the comment was made in relation to sex.
