An accountant at Historic England reported several colleagues to police for stalking after being asked to attend a workplace meeting in person, an employment tribunal heard.
Tanya Langston’s complaint was described as coming “out of the blue” and forming part of a “deliberate, contrived and calculated plan to tarnish” her co-workers’ reputations.
Ms Langston alleged that colleagues at the organisation were attempting to “exert control” over her by insisting that she attend a meeting.
She also made what the tribunal found to be unfounded allegations that her manager had stalked her via Skype and a dating application.
The tribunal concluded that she was trying to avoid misconduct proceedings at work and cause “as much distress as possible for her work colleagues”.
Ms Langston contacted police about her colleagues and claimed that 10 members of staff were involved in a conspiracy against her.
After she was dismissed, she brought legal claims alleging discrimination and unfair dismissal.
However, Bristol Employment Tribunal rejected her case.
Ms Langston joined Historic England in 2018. The public organisation is responsible for protecting and recording historic buildings and ancient monuments, and she worked at its base in Swindon, Wiltshire.
She was promoted to Assistant Systems Accountant in 2021, but by December 2022 managers had become concerned about repeated errors, despite providing her with additional support.
The tribunal heard that she had displayed “a lack of attention to detail”, including sending welcome letters to the same client more than once and entering incorrect email addresses into the system.
In March 2023, managers decided that formal performance management should be considered, citing her “resistance to and lack of engagement with [staff]” when concerns were raised or attempts were made to correct and train her.
Two months later, in May 2023, Ms Langston sent Matthew Ulyatt, Historic England’s head of finance, “a series of messages on Teams”.
Historic England’s Swindon offices, where Tanya Langston was based
The tribunal was told that some messages were random greetings, while others featured MS Paint images of what appeared to be an octopus or a Game Boy character, accompanied by questions asking what he thought of them. She also sent text messages that she deleted before he could read them.
Ms Langston later said she had sent the messages because she was “bored” and had not been given enough work. Mr Ulyatt nevertheless told her that the “bizarre” communications were inappropriate.
In reply, Ms Langston wrote: “You are barely my colleague, you are not my family nor are you my friend and even if you were, you are not entitled to behave towards me as described above.”
The tribunal described that response as “totally inappropriate” and said the messages were subsequently treated as a formal conduct matter.
At a later performance review, Ms Langston reportedly became “extremely hostile” and “very passive-aggressive”, believing that members of the team were deliberately withholding work from her.
She was suspended during a meeting in May 2023.
In response, she ‘threateningly’ said: ‘This isn’t going to be a difficult process for me. I’m going to make sure it’s a difficult time for you.’
MUST READ: Jay Jacobs Easily Reelected as New York State Democratic Party Chairman Despite Leadership Challenge
Immediately after her suspension in May, Miss Langston filed a grievance with Historic England, complaining about the weekly informal performance reviews.
In her grievance, she stated she had: ‘Contacted the police for advice, as it is entirely possible that my employment into Historic England is a part of a larger harassment or possibly stalking problem.’
She then filled out a bullying and harassment form which claimed that 10 colleagues were possibly in a conspiracy against her.
An investigation was launched and Miss Langston said the ‘stalking had affected her and her family and was online’.
She also claimed it included being required to attend a performance meeting in May 2023 in person because she said ‘stalking could take the form of attempts to make repeated contact as a method of exerting control’.
During the course of the investigation, Miss Langston clarified that she also believed Mr Ulyatt had matched with her through a dating app and said things ‘intended to cause her trauma’.
She also had been talking to people on Skype who she decided ‘had no genuine interest in developing a relationship with her’, and assumed they were her managers because their voices were similar.
However, she admitted that she had no evidence and did not know if the people she had spoken to even worked for Historic England.
The investigation drew to a close in July 2023, concluding there was no evidence of stalking.
The report said: ‘The stalking claim may have been malicious.’
Afterwards, the disciplinary investigation against Miss Langston resumed and she was given a warning for her inappropriate messages but allowed back to work.
The hearing heard: ‘The Team staff then expressed grave concerns about working with [Ms Langston] in the future given her complaints were directed at all of the Team (some of whom had barely met [her]), included unsubstantiated allegations which had been made out of the blue, and included wholly unevidenced allegations of stalking which [Ms Langston] had reported to the police.’
It was found that the relationship between Miss Langston ‘and those in her team had irretrievably broken down’.
She was dismissed in February 2024, and she appealed the dismissal but it was upheld.
She then took Historic England to an employment tribunal in Bristol alleging unfair dismissal and discrimination.
Employment Judge Andrew Midgley has now dismissed her claims.
He concluded: ‘I am satisfied that [Ms Langston’s] accounts reflected a deliberate, contrived and calculated plan to tarnish [Mr Ulyatt and other members of staff].
‘I am entirely satisfied… that each of those allegations was fabricated, had absolutely no factual basis capable of justifying them, that [Ms Langston] knew that, and that she deployed them with two intentions.
‘First to distract and if possible to defeat the misconduct allegations and performance issues, and secondly to cause as much difficulty and distress as possible for her work colleagues.
‘The allegations that [Ms Langston’s] dismissal was an act of direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability or harassment related to disability all fail. They are not well founded and are dismissed.’