It was ordered by the British Employment Tribunal Star Citizen Developer Cloud Imperium Games (CIG) will pay nearly £30,000 ($38,000) in compensation for discrimination against a disabled worker.
The studio was taken to court by senior programmer Paul Ah-Thion (the plaintiff) after it implemented a return-to-the-office policy that failed to accommodate his needs as a disabled person diagnosed with autism.
The claimant was hired by CIG in 2018 and brought his disability to the company’s attention early in his tenure. Although he initially worked from the company’s office in Wilmslow, the COVID-19 pandemic required staff to work remotely.
As noted in the tribunal judgment sent to Game Developer, after overcoming the pandemic, the studio opened a new office in Manchester and sought to relocate its workforce. However, during the pandemic, Ah-Thion found that working from home was more accommodating to his disability.
Instead of moving to the Manchester office, the claimant applied to CIG for a permanent telecommuting arrangement. The request was quickly denied. CIG refused to change its stance despite repeated requests and eventually fired Ah-Thion in July 2022.
During the tribunal, CIG described itself as a “start-up” business – despite boasting more than 400 employees – and tried to argue that the claimant had suffered performance problems related to its telecommuting set-up. He also claimed that he was unable to meet certain job criteria, such as mentoring younger employees, while working remotely.
However, the tribunal found that “there was no particular problem with the Claimant’s performance in relation to home working as opposed to his performance generally”. CIG’s witness said the company takes a “tougher” stance on working from home, but despite the plaintiff’s alleged performance issues, it never formally asked him to return to the office.
“The tribunal found that the respondent’s concerns about the claimant’s performance appeared to be rather retrospective in the sense that the respondent never formally investigated those concerns at the time the claimant was employed,” the judgment read.
“The tribunal found that if the respondent had serious concerns about the claimant’s performance, it had not adduced any evidence to suggest why they could not successfully monitor him remotely while he was working from home. Common measures of performance such as performance targets and regular review meetings could have been solved online.”
Taking these points into account, together with the claimant’s admission that working in an office often left him “exhausted and agitated”, the tribunal found that CIG could make a “reasonable adjustment” to allow Ah-Thion to work permanently from home. When the studio refused, it was found to have acted in a discriminatory and unreasonable manner.
“The tribunal finds that the respondent cannot satisfy us that the claimant’s termination was reasonable. We rely on the fact that we have found that working from home was a reasonable accommodation that would alleviate the claimant’s substantial disadvantage. There is no evidence that working from home would home would fail to achieve the respondent’s legitimate objective of ensuring acceptable performance by the senior game programmer,” the judgment reads.
“We found that the Respondent failed to understand the nature of the Complainant’s autism. The condition of his autism was that he struggled with his responsibilities as a coach, reviewer and mentor to younger team members. The evidence shows that the Complainant struggled to do this while working in the office. […] We find that the respondent treated the claimant unfavorably because of something arising out of his disability. They were unable to demonstrate that the dismissal was a reasonable means to achieve a legitimate aim and therefore the claimant’s claim succeeds.’
CIG was ordered to pay the plaintiff £27,748 in compensation. This includes loss of earnings totaling £14,045.31 and £12,000 for emotional distress.
“Employers should be careful not to confuse disability with weakness”
In an interview with Game Developer, Ah-Thion said he remains proud of his work at CIG and described many of his colleagues as “great people”. However, he also told us that the experience was spoiled during his last nine months at the studio, where he was “shocked to see how CIG management were prepared to ignore my disability and make light of my work”.
Ah-Thion said he felt “vindicated” after the tribunal’s outcome. “I’ve been fighting this myself for two years and autism has made the whole process particularly difficult. But we’re lucky to have an employment tribunal system where the average person can actually find justice without having to bankrupt themselves with statutory fees,” he continued.
“It was clear to me from the start that CIG did not want people to work from home after spending on their new office in Manchester and they worked backwards to bring up the reasons why my application should be refused, which they continued to do. do until the final court hearing – all while ignoring disability legislation. It was pleasing that the tribunal saw them through as easily as they did.’
He also suggested that some employers may have a “check-the-box mentality” when it comes to accommodating disabled workers, “where all you have to do is send a manager to a two-hour disability course.”
“In reality, every disabled worker is different and the easiest and best way is to talk to them, ideally on a semi-regular basis and outside the normal performance review process – and employers should be careful not to confuse disability with weakness,” he added. he added.
Game Developer spoke to Kuits employment solicitor Jake McManus to find out how employers in England and Wales can support disabled workers and how disabled people can hold employers to account.
He explained that employers have a “legal duty to make reasonable adjustments in the workplace for disabled workers” and said they must refrain from using a “one-size-fits-all” approach when determining which adjustments should be made.
“They should tailor the adjustments to the individual and their specific needs. Employers should monitor the adjustments to make sure they are working and the employee continues to be supported, and be flexible in making additional adjustments if necessary,” McManus said.
“With invisible disabilities such as autism, this can be difficult because it may not be immediately apparent how the condition affects the employee at work, or whether they have a disability in the first place. However, employers cannot rely on ignorance: if there is any indication, that the employee may be disabled, they should take steps to investigate further. The employment tribunal will not be afraid to hold the employer liable if it should reasonably have known about the disability and failed to carry out the necessary investigations which would have eventually revealed the disability.”
McManus’ advice to workers is to inform employers of their disability when they start work. In this way, the employer will have no doubts about his legal obligations. “If an employee believes they are being treated less fairly than other colleagues because of their disability or something that is a consequence of their disability, they should bring this to the employer’s attention so that it can be addressed,” he added. he continued.
“Employees should be aware that any workplace policy or practice that puts them at a disadvantage compared to other non-disabled employees could be discriminatory. In this case, the company’s policy requiring senior game programmers to work from the office left Mr. Ah .” -Thion, a person with autism, at a disadvantage because of his difficulties in social interaction.”
Game Developer has reached out to CIG for comment.