A police worker with ADHD has successfully sued her employer for disability discrimination after they failed to provide her with noise cancelling headphones, despite the fact that she already owned a pair. Donna Vale, who is neurodivergent, had requested the headphones to help manage background noise in her new role with Avon and Somerset Constabulary.The employment tribunal heard that Ms Vale possessed noise-cancelling headphones at home but did not use them for work or inform her new line manager about them. She eventually stopped pursuing the request for the force to supply them. However, she later brought a claim against the constabulary, which she won, on the grounds that the employer still had a duty to accommodate her request for reasonable adjustments.Employment Judge Edmund Beever acknowledged the "unusual" fact that Ms Vale had her own headphones but did not raise it. However, he said that this did not "undermine her case" as "the duty to make reasonable adjustments is on the employer not the employee". Ms Vale is now set to receive compensation.Ms Vale began her temporary role as a Victim and Witness Care Officer in September 2023, covering a long-term absence. New to policing, she had a background in creative arts and had previously been a self-employed artist, attributing this career choice to her ADHD making her reluctant to work with others.Ms Vale’s GP originally dismissed her symptoms ‘low self-esteem’ (Getty/iStock)Her ADHD diagnosis came in May 2023 via an online consultation with ADHD360, after her GP had dismissed her symptoms as "low self-esteem". ADHD360 has previously been scrutinised in a Panorama episode, which highlighted concerns about an undercover journalist receiving a diagnosis and medication without proper checks.Upon starting her police role, Ms Vale requested noise-cancelling headphones and disclosed her ADHD. She reiterated this request after her four-week probation review in October. Her line manager, Jennie Clarke, sought clarification, asking: "these are noise cancelling ones not the routine ones – is that correct? I will be asked can I confirm why you need those as opposed to a normal headset. let me know." Ms Vale did not pursue the request further.Judge Beever said: "It was an issue that fell between the cracks." He added: "There is one unusual aspect to this. [Ms Vale] had some noise cancelling headphones at home. She did not raise that fact with Miss Clarke, and did not use them at work. This may be seen as unfortunate, but... the duty to make reasonable adjustments is on the employer and not the employee." The judge clarified that "self-helping in such a case as this is not sufficient of itself to undermine [Ms Vale's] case". He concluded that despite Ms Vale's omission, it was "not sufficient to negate a finding that [Ms Vale] was at a substantial disadvantage, which the [police force] could reasonably have known. Providing [Ms Vale] with noise cancelling headphones was a reasonable adjustment which the [police force] failed to do."The entrance to the Avon & Somerset Constabulary headquarters in Portishead (PA)Beyond the headphones, Ms Vale also won a claim of disability harassment. This stemmed from a meeting in November 2023, shortly after she experienced a health scare at work. During this period, she confided in a colleague that "her GP has no awareness of what she is taking" due to her health being managed solely by ADHD360.In a subsequent meeting with Ms Clarke, Ms Vale expressed her own "doubts" about ADHD360. The tribunal heard that Ms Clarke agreed, questioning the diagnosis and suggesting Ms Vale could be being "exploited" in light of the Panorama investigation.Judge Beever found this constituted unlawful harassment, stating: "It was [Ms Vale] that introduced Panorama programme into the conversation, but that does not demand the conclusion that [Ms Vale] was content with a conversation the underlying premise of which was that her employer was doubtful that she was properly diagnosed let alone agreeing with her employer’s suggestion that she had been exploited." He added: "The Tribunal finds that [Ms Vale's] perception was that her diagnosis and the treatment that she was being advised to take had been undermined by her employer." The judge ruled that Ms Clarke's conduct in questioning Ms Vale's private diagnosis and insinuating exploitation amounted to "unlawful harassment".Ms Vale went on sickness absence in December 2023. After she raised a grievance and asked not to be contacted, her employment ended in March 2024, as planned for the return of the previous staff member. While the tribunal dismissed other claims by Ms Vale, finding staff had been supportive, it upheld the claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability harassment. Compensation will be determined at a later date.