A police worker with ADHD has won a £19,000 payout after suing her bosses for disability discrimination because they didn't give her noise-cancelling headphones - even though she had a pair at home. Donna Vale had asked for the headset when she began working for Avon and Somerset Constabulary because she is 'neurodivergent and this would help with background noise', a tribunal heard. Despite her request, Ms Vale already had a pair at home but had not informed her new boss about them. However she has now successfully sued Avon and Somerset Constabulary for disability discrimination as it was ruled that the police force still had a duty to accommodate her request for noise cancelling headphones.A judge said it was 'unusual' that she had a pair at home but did not raise it, but added it did not 'undermine her case' as 'the duty to make reasonable adjustments is on the employer not the employee'.The judge ordered that Ms Vale's bosses should pay her £19,141 in compensation, including £15,124 for injury to her feelings.Ms Vale began her employment as a victim and witness care officer at the force in a temporary role to cover a long-term absence in September 2023.She was new to policing as she 'had a background in creative arts' and had owned her own creative arts business. Former police worker Donna Vale, who has ADHD, has been awarded a £19,000 payout after winning a disability discrimination case as she was not given noise-cancelling headphonesShe said she was previously a self-employed artist because her ADHD made her not want to work with others. Ms Vale had only been diagnosed with ADHD via an online consultation with ADHD360 in May 2023 after her GP had refused to diagnose her because they thought it was simply 'low self-esteem'.ADHD360 was featured in a BBC Panorama episode after an undercover journalist was diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed medication without proper checks.Upon beginning work at the police force, Ms Vale requested that she be supplied with noise cancelling headphones and informed them of her ADHD.She requested noise cancelling headphones again after a four-week probation review in October.Ms Vale's line manager Jennie Clarke asked: '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 ask for the headphones again, and in fact had a working pair at home that she did not use. The tribunal ruled that the force had failed to supply Ms Vale with headphones and she would now be in line for a payout as a resultEmployment Judge Edmund Beever said: 'It was an issue that fell between the cracks.'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.'Judge Beever added: 'For argument's sake, self-helping in such a case as this is not sufficient of itself to undermine (Ms Vale's) case in respect of any broader challenge by the (police force) that (she) may not have been under a disadvantage.'Shortly after, in November 2023, Ms Vale had a health scare at work in which she believed she was suffering a heart attack.Ms Vale confided in a colleague who had worked as nurse during this episode that 'her GP has no awareness of what she is taking' because her health was being handled solely by ADHD360.Ms Vale had a meeting with Miss Clarke shortly after where she disclosed her own 'doubts' about ADHD360.The tribunal heard that Miss Clarke agreed, and questioned the diagnosis, saying that she could be being 'exploited' in light of the Panorama investigation.Ms Vale went on sick leave in December 2023, but when Miss Clarke wrote to the support officer to check on her, Ms Vale raised a grievance and asked not to be contacted again.She did not attend any grievance meetings and her employment ended in March 2024, although this had been the plan as the previous member of staff returned from their absence at this time. Ms Vale then took the police force to an employment tribunal in Bristol, alleging that the staff had spread cruel rumours about her and made dismissive remarks.The tribunal concluded that the staff had actually been supportive of her throughout her employment and dismissed some of Ms Vale's claims.However, she won a claim of failure to make a reasonable adjustment - a form of disability discrimination - because the force didn't supply the headphones.Judge Beever said: 'It was... unfortunate that (Ms Vale) did not inform Miss Clarke and/or discuss the use of her noise cancelling headphones at home.'All that said, it is 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.' Ms Vale also won a claim of disability harassment because Miss Clarke questioned her ADHD diagnosis.Judge Beever said: '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.'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.'Taking into account all circumstances, the tribunal finds that the effect of the conduct of Miss Clarke at the 16 November 2023 meeting in questioning (Ms Vale's) private ADHD diagnosis and insinuating that (Ms Vale) had been exploited and that the medication might as a result be unapproved and unsafe amounted to unlawful harassment.'