A bus driver tried to sue her employer after being accused of a fart that smelt so foul it meant a colleague had to wash her uniform.
Stephanie Bryan was behind the wheel for electric bus company The Big Lemon when she allegedly produced ‘significant flatulence’.
An ‘episode’ ensued, a tribunal heard, with co-worker Samantha Bingham noticing the lingering odour when she started her shift and sat in the same seat, concluding that Ms Bryan had soiled herself.
Upon returning home, Ms Bingham’s partner also sensed a nasty stench and asked if she had defecated.
Ms Bingham then felt compelled to wash her uniform and ‘immediately’ take a shower to remove the smell.
When her colleague confronted her, Ms Bryan said in her defence, ‘Everyone needs to fart and let out gases.’
The tribunal heard that Ms Bryan reacted ‘negatively’ to the accusations and displayed ‘personal hostility’, despite Ms Bingham being ‘genuinely and reasonably concerned by the situation she found herself in’.
Ms Bingham reported the matter to her line manager, with personal hygiene concerns raised during Ms Bryan’s employment review, which was conducted ‘sensitively and appropriately in private’.
Ultimately, Ms Bryan was dismissed. She was on a three-month probation from September 2024, extended to January 2025 due to ‘concerns regarding her performance’, but she failed.
Consequently, she took legal action against the bus operator for disability discrimination and harassment.
She argued her employer had discriminated against her for having bladder issues.
However, the Bristol Employment Tribunal rejected her claims.
An employment judge ruled that Ms Bryan’s complaints were not related to her health.
It was also found that Ms Bryan did not inform The Big Lemon bosses of her depression or borderline personality disorder diagnoses, nor her existing bladder weakness.
As such, management had no idea these could contribute to hygiene problems.
Judge Jonathan Walters said: ‘The odour was consistent with faecal matter potentially caused by significant flatulence which had led to soiling and was not associated with urine or urinary incontinence.’
It was ruled that Ms Bingham had raised ‘a genuine workplace concern’, and there was ‘absolutely no evidence before the tribunal that [she] had any knowledge of the claimed disabilities nor ought she reasonably to have known about them’.
‘The actions of [Ms Bingham] were unrelated to disability and were not motivated by disability,’ said Judge Walters.
‘She had attempted to address [her concerns] with [Ms Bryan], whose reaction was not conducive to resolution, and, therefore, she had no option but to raise the matter with management, as the situation which occurred was indeed detrimental both to her and to the business itself.’
He added: ‘The tribunal does not find that the dismissal arose because of any consequence of [Ms Bryan’s] depression, borderline personality disorder or bladder weakness.’
Instead, she was fired because of her poor driving standards, which led to her failing to ‘satisfactorily complete her probationary period’.
The Big Lemon said in a statement: ‘We do not comment on individual members of staff but would like to thank Ms Bingham for her professionalism throughout this case, and thanks are also due to Judge Walters for the consideration he gave to what was quite a sensitive situation.’
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.