A junior chef who unleashed a profanity-laden tirade in front of spa guests has been awarded over £13,000 after a tribunal concluded her outburst was triggered by anxiety.
Abbie Garner was fired after she was overheard shouting “you f***ing made me love you then you cheated on me, you c***” to a colleague.
However, a tribunal ruled the outburst was linked to her disabilities, which included anxiety and depression. She has since been awarded £13,455.91, with £11,000 designated to reflect “the injury to the claimant’s feelings as a result of the discrimination found.”
The incident occurred in front of guests near the spa reception at the four-star Thorpe Hall Hotel and Spa in Peterborough on 9 August 2023.
It was sparked by a personal argument with a fellow chef she had been in a relationship with, the tribunal heard.
Complaints were made to reception and the chef was called in for a disciplinary.
During the disciplinary she gave abrupt responses and asked whether her ex-partner would also be punished.
Notes from the hearing recorded her saying: “I have apologised – what else do you want?”
The tribunal ruled that she was disabled under the Equality Act and said her inability to control her anger “arose in consequence of her disability”.
It said: “The claimant is disabled by virtue of anxiety, depression, and polycystic ovary syndrome.
“The claimant relies on her conduct on August 9, the incident, and August 18, her abrupt responses in the disciplinary meeting, as things arising from her disability.
“Namely an inability to regulate her mood or control her anger due to her disabilities.”
It added that Ms Garner “was put at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without her disability”.
Employment Judge C Lewis concluded the hotel failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments by not seeking medical evidence before dismissing her.
“We are satisfied that it would have been a reasonable adjustment for the respondent to have sought medical evidence,” the tribunal said.
“We find that there was a reasonable prospect this could have led to a different outcome.”
The judge found her “continued employment posed a risk to the respondent’s reputation” – but said this did not justify failing to properly consider whether her conduct was linked to her mental health.
