A headline-grabbing tribunal, a highly unusual set of facts, and some very important employment law lessons for employers.
The recent Employment Tribunal claim brought by Stephanie Bryan against her former employer, The Big Lemon, generated significant national media attention. However, whilst many reports focused on the unusual circumstances surrounding complaints of odour and flatulence in the workplace, the real story lies in the Tribunal’s analysis of disability discrimination, employer knowledge, probationary performance management and workplace dignity.
For HR professionals, managers and business owners, this is a case well worth reading.
The Background
Stephanie Bryan joined The Big Lemon, an electric bus operator based in the Bristol area, in September 2024 as a bus driver. Like many new employees, she was subject to a three-month probationary period designed to assess her suitability for the role and her ability to meet the standards expected by the business.
However, the probation period did not go smoothly.
The Tribunal heard that concerns arose regarding Ms Bryan’s performance. Whilst media coverage understandably focused on one particular incident, the evidence before the Tribunal demonstrated that management concerns pre-dated the eventual dismissal and formed part of an ongoing assessment of her suitability during probation. These concerns were serious enough for the company to extend her probationary period rather than confirm her employment.
During this period, managers also raised issues regarding personal hygiene. Importantly, the Tribunal heard that these discussions took place privately and sensitively, rather than publicly or in a manner intended to embarrass Ms Bryan.
The Incident That Triggered National Headlines
The case reached the public spotlight following an incident involving another driver, Samantha Bingham.
The Tribunal heard evidence that Ms Bingham took over a bus shortly after it had been driven by Ms Bryan. Upon entering the vehicle, she became aware of what she described as a very strong odour emanating from the driver’s area. According to the evidence accepted by the Tribunal, the smell was so significant that it remained on her clothing and was later noticed when she returned home.
When the matter was later discussed, the Tribunal heard that Ms Bryan responded by stating that “everyone needs to fart”. The incident was subsequently reported to management and became one of a number of matters considered during the probation review process.
It is worth noting that the Tribunal accepted the evidence of Ms Bingham, finding that she had raised the issue genuinely and appropriately because she considered it to be a legitimate workplace concern rather than an attempt to humiliate a colleague.
The Disability Discrimination Claim
Following the termination of her employment in January 2025, Ms Bryan brought claims for disability discrimination and harassment.
She argued that she suffered from a number of medical conditions, including:
- Bladder weakness
- Depression
- Borderline personality disorder
and that she had been treated less favourably because of those conditions.
The employer, however, disputed those allegations.
The Big Lemon maintained that the dismissal was not connected to disability and was instead based upon concerns regarding performance during probation together with other workplace issues that had arisen during her employment. The company also argued that it had not been informed about the conditions upon which the claim was later founded.
This distinction proved crucial.
What Did the Tribunal Decide?
Employment Judge Jonathan Walters rejected Ms Bryan’s claims and found in favour of the employer.
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal made several significant findings:
- The employer had not been informed of Ms Bryan’s medical conditions at the relevant time.
- The concerns raised by colleagues were genuine workplace concerns rather than acts of harassment.
- The odour complained of was not considered to be connected to urinary incontinence or bladder weakness.
- The dismissal decision was linked to probationary and performance-related concerns rather than disability discrimination.
The Tribunal accepted evidence that the odour was “consistent with faecal matter potentially caused by significant flatulence” and not associated with urinary issues, undermining the argument that the concerns arose because of the disability relied upon by the claimant.
Why This Case Matters
Whilst most employers are unlikely to encounter facts quite as unusual as those in this case, the legal principles arise in workplaces every day.
Employers Cannot Manage What They Do Not Know
One of the most important aspects of the judgment was the Tribunal’s finding that the employer had not been informed of the relevant medical conditions.
This raises an important question seen regularly in employment disputes:
How can an employer make adjustments or take account of a disability if it has never been told about it?
Whilst employers should remain alert to signs that an employee may be struggling with a health condition, there are limits to what organisations can reasonably be expected to know.
Disability Does Not Prevent Legitimate Performance Management
The judgment is also a useful reminder that having a disability does not create immunity from performance management.
Where employers identify genuine issues relating to performance, capability or conduct, they remain entitled to investigate and address those concerns provided they act fairly and consistently.
Tribunals will often look beyond allegations made after dismissal and examine whether there is a documented history of concerns predating any claim.
In this case, the employer was able to point to performance concerns that already existed before the relationship ultimately came to an end.
Process Matters
Many employers focus on the outcome of a decision. Tribunals focus on the process.
One of the reasons this decision is striking is because the employer appears to have followed a relatively measured approach. Rather than rushing to dismiss, it extended probation, held review discussions and raised sensitive matters privately.
Those procedural steps undoubtedly helped the employer explain and defend its actions when challenged.
Dignity and Respect Still Matter
Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of the case is how difficult workplace issues were handled.
Managers occasionally need to have uncomfortable conversations about hygiene, personal presentation, health concerns or behaviour. Avoiding those discussions can create wider problems for colleagues and service users.
The Tribunal’s findings suggest that concerns were addressed privately and appropriately, demonstrating that employers can tackle sensitive issues while preserving individual dignity.
The Bigger Picture
Behind the headlines, this case is not really about flatulence.
It is about the balance every employer must strike between supporting employees with health conditions and managing operational performance standards.
It is about ensuring managers have the confidence to address difficult issues sensitively.
And it is about understanding that when employment decisions are challenged, tribunals will look for evidence, documentation, consistency and fairness rather than assumptions or hindsight.
For employers, the message is simple:
Document concerns. Follow process. Treat people with dignity. And ensure decisions are based on evidence rather than assumptions.
Those principles helped The Big Lemon successfully defend this claim and they remain the foundation of good employment practice for every employer.
The full judgment is available to read online Ms_Stephanie_Bryan_-vs-__1__The_Big_Lemon_CIC___2__Samantha_Bingham_-_6007763.2025_-_Judgment.pdf
Prevention Is Always Better Than Litigation
Employment Tribunal claims rarely arise from a single incident. More often, they stem from a combination of workplace issues, management decisions and communication challenges that accumulate over time.
The employers best placed to defend claims are those that:
- Keep accurate records
- Follow fair procedures
- Train managers effectively
- Address concerns early
- Create an environment where health issues can be discussed openly
The question for employers is simple:
If a Tribunal examined your decision-making process today, would your documentation tell the full story?
Our Employment Law specialists support businesses of all sizes with HR strategy, training, policy development, disciplinary and capability processes, discrimination issues and Employment Tribunal defence.
To discuss any workplace challenge, contact our team for expert advice.
