When duty of care fails: lessons from the BAFTAs incident

In light of the recent BAFTAs incident, organisations should be looking closely at how they approach duty of care – especially when non-visible disabilities are involved.

The incident, involving an involuntary tic linked to Tourette syndrome (coprolalia), resulted in racist language being broadcast nationwide. It has triggered significant controversy. Not only has it caused understandable outrage and hurt within the Black community, it has also fuelled harmful misunderstandings about Tourette syndrome and coprolalia specifically, with some public responses showing a lack of awareness about what involuntary tics are – and what they are not.

To be clear, both of these harms need to be acknowledged. The pain felt by the Black community is real and should not be minimised. And the impact on people with Tourette syndrome should also be taken seriously, especially where public reaction has been misinformed or hostile.

But sitting beneath all of this is an organisational failure in handling.

The BBC has acknowledged that there was an opportunity to prevent further harm before transmission, yet the slur still appeared in the delayed broadcast. This is the core reason so much criticism is now directed at both the BBC and the BAFTAs: a failure of care in how the incident was managed and aired.

It is a distressing situation – and it should act as a stark reminder of how important duty of care becomes when incidents involve non-visible disabilities, particularly in public-facing settings. So, what can organisations learn from these failures, and what does good duty of care look like in practice?

Understanding non-visible disabilities in practice

Non-visible disabilities can include:

• Tourette syndrome
• Autism
• ADHD
• Chronic pain
• Mental health conditions
• Neurological disorders
• Sensory processing disorders
• Cognitive impairments

These conditions may not be immediately obvious, but they can significantly affect how safely and fairly someone can take part in work or public‑facing environments.

This matters because people often make assumptions based only on what they can see. Support needs are not always visible – and neither is distress. When organisations rely too heavily on appearances, the likelihood of poor decisions and preventable harm increases.

Strengthening organisational awareness and training

Employee understanding is a key starting point.

People do not need to become specialists, but they do need enough awareness to respond appropriately, avoid harmful assumptions, and recognise when someone may need support. This becomes even more crucial when a situation is fast‑moving or public.

In practice, training should help staff:

• Identify when someone may be distressed or in need of support
• Adjust communication accordingly
• Handle incidents calmly to prevent escalation

Training is not a standalone legal requirement. Even so, it plays an important role in supporting compliance with the Equality Act 2010, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments and the prohibition of disability discrimination.

Reviewing and improving reasonable adjustments

Another essential area is ensuring people can access support easily and consistently. Many organisations have the right intent, but when someone discloses a non-visible disability – or when a need becomes apparent in the moment – the next steps often feel unclear.

Delays, uncertainty, or inconsistent responses can create avoidable stress and leave people feeling unsupported.

This is why reasonable adjustments need more than a policy. Teams should understand:

• How requests are handled
• How quickly support can be provided
• Who is responsible for decisions

Reasonable adjustments might include:

• Changes to working arrangements
• Access to a quieter space
• Alternative communication methods
• Adjustments to deadlines or performance expectations

What matters most is whether the organisation can respond in a way that works for the individual. That is often what makes the biggest difference day‑to‑day.

Strengthening duty of care and incident response processes

A useful UK reference point is the duty of candour, common in regulated healthcare. It sets an expectation that organisations act openly and transparently when incidents occur. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) defines when an incident becomes a notifiable safety incident – typically one that was unintended or unexpected, occurred during regulated care, and caused or risked significant harm.

Even when an incident does not meet that threshold, duty of care still applies. Organisations must respond with openness, take the impact seriously, and explain what will happen next.

In practice, this usually involves:

• Recording a clear factual account of what happened
• Informing affected individuals promptly and compassionately
• Explaining the steps being taken to prevent recurrence
• Demonstrating reflection and learning

This is often where trust is either rebuilt or lost. A careful response won’t undo the harm, but it can prevent further damage and show that responsibility is being taken seriously.

Embedding inclusive environmental and event design

For events, conferences, award ceremonies, and other public settings, inclusive planning needs to begin long before the day itself.

This goes beyond physical accessibility. It includes anticipating what the environment might feel like for someone with a non-visible disability, how support can be requested, and how staff should respond if something unexpected happens.

Practical measures include:

• Conducting accessibility assessments
• Sharing advance information about sensory factors (lighting, sound, crowds)
• Providing clear routes for requesting adjustments
• Training event staff to respond discreetly and respectfully

This preparation reduces the risk of public‑facing failures that can harm individuals and create wider organisational fallout.

Improving through consultation

Organisations that handle these situations effectively are rarely the ones designing policies in isolation.

Co‑designing systems, processes, and adjustments with disabled staff and relevant stakeholders leads to better, more realistic decisions. It also strengthens trust, because people are far more likely to engage with approaches informed by lived experience rather than assumptions.

Consultation helps identify gaps early – before they turn into serious problems in a live setting.

Final thought

After a public incident involving a non‑visible disability, organisations often shift too quickly into reputational response. That matters – but it should never come at the expense of care, responsibility, or accountability.

A better response starts with honesty about what happened and where handling went wrong. From there, the focus should be on meaningful change and showing that lessons have been learned.

For UK employers and organisations, this is a reminder that duty of care must hold up when things are difficult and emotions are high. When it does, people are safer, trust is easier to rebuild, and the response is far less likely to cause further harm.