Receptionist who could not say firm’s name when answering phone loses at employment tribunal

A law firm receptionist’s refusal to accept ‘her own obvious shortcomings’ contributed to her failure in an employment tribunal claim. These deficiencies included an inability to say the firm’s name when answering telephone calls.

Judge Cowx, sitting with two panel members, acknowledged Kent firm Wykeham-Hurford Sheppard & Son was ‘certainly something of a mouthful’, but the panel did not agree that stating its name was an unreasonable task for a receptionist.

Miss J Earle, as she is referred to in the judgment, represented herself. She brought claims alleging direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising out of disability, failure by the respondent to make reasonable adjustments and three claims of harassment related to disability.

Earle, a temporary receptionist administrator, started work at the firm’s Chislehurst office on 15 June 2022. Her placement was terminated eight days later.

The firm claimed she could not perform the role to the required standard. Earle argued her contract was terminated because of her disability comprising back, shoulder and neck pain.

All of Earle’s claims failed. The panel found she did not meet the statutory definition of disability, did not make the firm aware of a disability, was not discriminated against in the manner alleged and was not subject to harassment.

One of Earle’s ‘main tasks’ was to answer phone calls. The judgment said she ‘repeatedly put calls or attempted to put calls through to [firm director] Mrs Reeve or other fee-earners directly’, rather than to the relevant support team member as she had been instructed.

It added: ‘Another performance or competence example was Miss Earle’s inability to say the firm’s name when answering the phone to clients. She put it to Mrs Reeve that it was a difficult name to repeat over the phone. The name Wykeham-Hurford Sheppard & Son is certainly something of a mouthful, but the panel did not agree that it was a difficult or unreasonable task for a receptionist to perform.

‘A new member of staff could have overcome the problem by practice or having the name to hand, in writing, when answering the phone, but for whatever reason Miss Earle was unable answer the phone to the respondent’s satisfaction.

‘It was the manner in which Miss Earle refused to accept her own obvious shortcomings which further undermined her credibility.’