A Defence Ministry employee atNATOThe headquarters was taken to court for harassment following the incident where he did not receive a 'good luck' card upon leaving his position.
James Eyles felt disappointed that his period at the base was not officially recognized, as revealed in an employment tribunal.
The housing facility manager stated that he had been subjected to discrimination due to his disabilities – which comprised PTSD,depression, anxiety and paranoia.
Nevertheless, the panel rejected his assertion, stating that receiving a card from coworkers was 'optional' and that he was not the sole individual on his team who did not have his exit acknowledged.
The hearing, held in Cambridge, learned that Mr Eyles started working with the MoD in March 2020, overseeing their lodging facilities at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe in Mons, Belgium.
In this position, his main duty was to supply furniture and soft decor items to British MoD and NATO families and personnel.
Mr. Eyles also oversaw the group stationed at Sennelager in Germany, but in May 2021, they were reassigned to a different manager within another department.
This was part of a broader restructuring, as the hearing was informed.
Mr. Eyles informed the tribunal that this constituted a 'reduction in position,' and following their removal from his supervision, he was limited to 'menial duties'—driven by awareness of his disabilities.
He stated that in October 2021, his supervisor 'mocked and reprimanded' him, calling him 'inept' after a confusion regarding certain furniture.
In December, the Ministry of Defence became aware of his post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and paranoia, according to the tribunal.
In September 2022, he was informed that his application to prolong his tour by an additional two years would not be approved.
He received an email stating that the cause was a 'review' of the department's structure, leading to positions not being renewed.
In November 2022, he was turned down for a housing manager position, and in March 2023, the offer for a role as the repair department manager at Sennelager was rescinded.
After his tour concluded in July 2023, Mr Eyles did not receive a 'good luck' card or any recognition, which he alleged constituted discrimination based on his disability.
"The MoD acknowledges that when [he] departed on 16 July 2023, he did not receive a Good Luck card or any farewell gift," said Employment Judge Kate Hutchings.
[He] did not dispute the [MoD's] data indicating that not all individuals had a presentation or were given a lucky charm upon departure.
In fact, [another colleague] mentioned that she did not receive a presentation or card when she left her position in July 2024.
From a personal perspective, this was unwelcome behavior since [he] was distressed that his exit was not officially acknowledged.
There is no proof that the reason he was not given a card or presentation was because of his disabilities. His immediate supervisors were absent due to illness during this period and therefore could not arrange it.
Regardless, it was up to the colleagues to organize this. Due to these factors, we determine that this harassment complaint concerning disability is unfounded.
In summary, the tribunal determined that none of Mr Eyles' claims were valid, with many of them not occurring at all.
He continues to be employed by the MoD.
Read more- What caused a courageous officer to pursue justice against the Ministry of Defence due to discrimination based on disability?
- Fired after 406 days off: Was it just or an unjust termination of a nurse who has multiple disabilities?
- What unconventional measures caused a Ministry of Defence official's remote work disaster to trigger and result in the dismissal of a racial discrimination lawsuit?
- What was the reason behind the employment tribunal's decision to reject the charity director's allegations of disability discrimination linked to menopause?
- Did a tribunal determine that the NHS's choice to terminate a cleaner's employment without acknowledging her disability constituted a clear violation of her rights?