An NHS worker has been awarded nearly £29,000 in compensation after a colleague compared her to Darth Vader, the villain from Star Wars, during a personality test exercise in the workplace.
Lorna Rooke, who worked as a training and practice supervisor at NHS Blood and Transplant, was the subject of a Star Wars-themed Myers-Briggs personality assessment in which she was assigned the character of Darth Vader. The test was completed on her behalf by another colleague while she was out of the room.
An employment tribunal held in Croydon, south London, found that the incident constituted a "detriment" and contributed to Ms Rooke's low mood and anxiety at work. The tribunal heard that the personality label made her feel "unpopular" and negatively impacted her work environment.
Although the Darth Vader category was described in the assessment as a "very focused individual who brings the team together", Employment Judge Kathryn Ramsden ruled that the association was ultimately damaging. “Darth Vader is a legendary villain of the Star Wars series, and being aligned with his personality is insulting,” she said. The judge also noted that since the test was taken based on another colleague’s perception and shared with the wider group, it was understandable that Ms Rooke felt upset.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, commonly used in professional development, classifies individuals into one of 16 personality types based on traits such as introversion, intuition, thinking versus feeling, and judging versus perceiving. In this instance, the team used a themed version linking the results to Star Wars characters.
Ms Rooke began her role with the NHS in 2003 and resigned in 2021. The tribunal acknowledged that the Darth Vader incident was one of several reasons behind her departure. While she was unsuccessful in claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments, the tribunal upheld her claim for detriment following a protected disclosure.
She was awarded £28,989.61 in compensation.
The case has drawn attention to workplace culture and the potential risks of using themed or informal assessment tools in professional settings, particularly without consent.
