In the news this week is the story that “An NHS worker has been awarded almost £30,000 in compensation after being compared to Star Wars villain Darth Vader at work.” (BBC News).

While it’s a gripping headline, the full story is, as you might expect, a little more complicated.

Although the compensation was awarded recently, the case itself was heard a long time ago, in an employment tribunal far, far away – Croydon, to be precise.

The Claimant had worked for NHS Blood and Transplant (the Respondent) for over 18 years before leaving her role in 2021.

She brought several complaints against her employer, including that she was forced to resign (constructive dismissal), discriminated against due to her mental health, and treated unfairly after raising safety concerns (whistleblowing).

Under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a protected disclosure is when a worker reasonably believes they are sharing information in the public interest that shows or suggests one of the following:

  • A criminal offence has happened or might happen
  • Someone has broken or is likely to break the law
  • A miscarriage of justice has occurred or might occur
  • Health or safety of any person is at risk
  • The environment is being or could be harmed
  • Any of the above is being deliberately covered up

Disclosures that meet these conditions are known as qualifying disclosures and are legally protected.

In this case, the tribunal agreed that the Claimant had raised a genuine safety concern – specifically, about a missing question in a donor form that could have affected blood safety.

This satisfied the legal requirements for a protected disclosure under whistleblowing law.

The tribunal found that, as a result of this disclosure, the Claimant suffered two unlawful detriments. In other words, she was treated unfairly because she had spoken up:

  1. Her request to withdraw her resignation was refusedThe tribunal found that the employer’s decision to reject her attempt to retract her resignation was directly linked to her protected disclosure. This was ruled to be unlawful under whistleblowing protections.
  2. She was publicly compared to “Darth Vader” by a managerA manager had completed a personality test on the Claimant’s behalf and shared with the team that her profile matched that of Darth Vader. The tribunal described Vader as “a legendary villain of the Star Wars series,” noting that such a comparison was insulting, particularly since it was based on the manager’s perception – not the Claimant’s own input – and shared in a group setting. The tribunal concluded that this would reasonably be viewed as a detriment.

The Claimant’s other complaints – constructive dismissal, disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments – were dismissed.

The tribunal found that she resigned due to personal stress, not because she had been forced out.

They also found no clear evidence that her managers knew she had a disability at the relevant time, and that her employer had considered her request for adjustments.

While the “Darth Vader Incident,” as the Tribunal dubbed it, was clearly inappropriate, it risks overshadowing the real substance of the case: the Claimant succeeded in her whistleblowing claim after raising a legitimate safety concern. The Star Wars reference was just one of the detriments she experienced for speaking up.

This case also illustrates the significant delays still affecting the tribunal system, following the removal of tribunal fees (declared unlawful by the Supreme Court) and the impact of Covid.

Although the Claimant filed her case in 2022, the full hearing did not take place until January 2024, and a decision on compensation was not made until 2025.

If you have concerns about whistleblowing and would like legal advice, please speak with to Neil Emery by calling 0203 542 2557 or emailing Neil.Emery@mackrell.com.

Share