A worker at a luxury five-star hotel has been awarded more than £200,000 after she was made to handle the company’s payroll from inside a cupboard.

An employment tribunal heard that Roberta Ghiotto, who has ADHD, was told to complete a three-day payroll task “under pressure” without any prior training.

She was told to do the work from inside a cupboard after finding it difficult to concentrate in the busy office.

She was left “crying” after being informed that she would not be able to pass her probation period at the boutique Oxford hotel if she failed to complete it.

Ms Ghiotto was dismissed despite explaining to her employer that her ADHD made detail-oriented work far harder for her.

Reading Employment Tribunal has now ruled that she was “set up to fail”.

She has won a claim for disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable workplace adjustments, with a payout of £200,252 in compensation.

Ms Ghiotto worked as a talent and culture coordinator at the five-star Hawkwell House Hotel, in Iffley, Oxford, from October 2023 until her dismissal in March 2024.

The hotel is managed by the Accor Group, which operates roughly 6,000 hotels globally.

It is advertised as an “enchanting retreat” in a “picturesque village”.

Ms Ghiotto was hired as maternity cover, and when she was taken on, there was no job description for her role, though she was referred to as human resources (HR), the tribunal heard.

She did not possess any formal HR qualifications or experience and was subject to a three-month probation period.

Part of her responsibilities included wellness, while approximately 25 per cent involved making the payroll, which she said she found to be considerably more difficult.

Ms Ghiotto informed her employers that she had ADHD and struggled to focus in a busy office while carrying out detail-oriented tasks.

A new general manager, Anuj Sagar, joined the hotel, and Ms Ghiotto said that he immediately took a dislike to her and was “prejudiced” against her.

She made him aware of her problems focussing, but he admitted that he thought she was trying to be “deliberately insubordinate”, the tribunal heard.

Mr Sagar decided to extend her probation period by another three months because she had made errors in her payroll tasks.

He said that she should focus solely on her payroll duties for three days in February 2024 in a separate room, which was a former cupboard without a telephone or a window, the tribunal heard.

Ms Ghiotto told him that she had little experience and no qualifications or training in payroll, and that she found that aspect of the role particularly difficult because of her additional needs.

During the three days, Ms Ghiotto found the task very stressful and asked for help from one of the accountants and an extra day to do it.

She was worried that she would not pass her probation if she could not do the task.

After a meeting with Mr Sagar to discuss the length of time the payroll took, she told him that she had ADHD and when he later queried if she had been diagnosed, she said that she had not formally been diagnosed.

He said he received advice from consultants Croner that he could dismiss her.

He sent her a letter of dismissal in March 2024 based on her failure to perform to the required standards during her probationary period.

Employment Judge Akua Reindorf KC ruled that Ms Ghiotto did have ADHD, despite not having a diagnosis, and Mr Sagar was aware of this.

She said that he sought advice about ADHD and decided that because she did not have a diagnosis, he could fire her.

Judge Reindorf KC said: “Mr Sagar asked whether [Ms Ghiotto] had a formal diagnosis. When she said she did not, he asked whether the condition had been entered on her ‘charts’ and if so whether it was ‘clear’.

“In light of this line of questioning, we think it more likely than not that in his telephone call to [consultants] Croner the previous day, Mr Sagar had been advised to find out whether [she] had a diagnosis, and told that if she did not he could dismiss her.

“We consider it likely that this advice was given on the mistaken basis that a diagnosis is necessary before a condition can be classified as a disability under the EqA [Equality Act].

“The intention, therefore, was to dismiss [her] because she had ADHD in the belief that she was not protected by the EqA. Moreover, Mr Sagar was aware that the advice was given for these reasons.”

Judge Reindorf KC said that the task of completing payroll was set up by Mr Sagar to make Ms Ghiotto to “fail” because the room was not a “suitable work space”.

She said: “We agree with [Ms Ghiotto] that in restricting her duties to payroll only during this three day period, Mr Sagar was setting her up to fail.

“We reject his evidence that he was trying to support her. Rather, we think that he was attempting to build evidence to substantiate his view that she was not capable of the job.

“He stripped away from her all the aspects of the job that she enjoyed and was successful at, and made her work only on the task that she struggled with the most.

“He did not arrange additional training or support other than to place [her] in an isolated, windowless small room on her own, purportedly to assist her with concentration.

“We also find that [she] was distracted from the task by the pressure under which Mr Sagar had placed her.

“In our judgement the problems she experienced during this period were due to a combination of her difficulties with this sort of work because of her ADHD, the pressure under which she had been placed by Mr Sagar, her lack of training and experience and the fact that the task was not particularly straightforward due to missing and incomplete data and confusion over processes.”

Ms Ghiotto said that being dismissed, Ms Ghiotto said that she fell into a “deep depression” and had to see the doctor for medication.

She said: “Imagine knowing you have something about you, something different, which you need support with, and you communicate that to your line manager in a plea for help, but instead of any help or support being given, your line manager used that very thing as the reason to dismiss you.

“The sense of absolute betrayal you feel from that moment on is awful, soul-destroying, confidence-draining, and really affects your self-image and your self-worth.”