A magistrate who ‘escalated out of all proportion’ a minor incident has had her employment tribunal claims of discrimination, harassment and victimisation dismissed.
Melanie Treganza Dancer was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in 1999 and then in 2022 with anxiety and depression and was disabled from then onwards. She successfully applied to become a magistrate in January 2008, when she disclosed a ‘hidden disability’ of fibromyalgia, and served from 2009.
The employment tribunal judgment said that due to her fibromyalgia, Dancer needed to sit on the left of the bench chair to minimise pain and discomfort. She was told to raise with future chairs her need for specific seatings.
In March 2022, a ‘situation arose between the members of the bench, which led to complaints’ when Dancer asked to sit on the left of the bench chair, where a fellow magistrate was already seated. The other magistrate moved and Dancer was able to sit on the left. A complaint was later made about Dancer by her colleague who said she found Dancer’s ‘attitude rude and her conduct unprofessional’.
Employment judge Liz Ord said: ‘This case has arisen out of a minor incident in March 2022 between the bench members, which has been turned around and escalated out of all proportion by the claimant.
Read more
‘It was not until she was asked to respond to the complaint about her attitude, that she made allegations of discrimination against the other bench members, which then expanded to include the Bench Chair, who was simply trying to resolve matters informally in a reasonable manner.
‘There is no hint of anyone being discriminatory towards the claimant. In fact, there were many attempts to try and support her and meet with her to understand her needs and reasonable adjustments. All along, she put obstacles in the way to avoid any meetings taking place to discuss the complaints against her or her requirements. This was despite being given chance after chance by those who were trying to help and resolve the situation.’
The three person-panel did not find Dancer was ‘put to any disadvantage/detriment or treated less favourably than someone without a disability’.
It also found the complaint made about Dancer by a fellow magistrate had ‘nothing to do with’ Dancer’s disability or anything arising from it but was ‘because of the perceived manner in which [Dancer] spoke to her and treated her’.
The judgment said: ‘None of the claimant’s complaints are well founded and therefore they are all dismissed.’ Dancer’s additional three allegations remain to be heard.
