Ms S.King- Counsel For the v Mr J. Gidney- Counsel Case No.1300874/2018 2 J U D G M E N T The unanimous — 2017

Simon Preston worked for the respondent school from January 2017 as Assistant Head Teacher and Head of Mathematics Faculty. The respondent accepted that he had cardiomyopathy and dyslexia. The tribunal found that the school knew of the cardiomyopathy from a pre-employment occupational health report in December 2016, and first learned of the dyslexia when the claimant told HR on 19 May 2017. After ankle surgery, some adjustments were made, including a set base, a reduced timetable and continued parking arrangements; the claimant later asked for software to assist with dyslexia.

On the section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim, the tribunal held that the first allegation, concerning comments said to have been made on 24 August 2017 after GCSE results, was out of time. It rejected the argument that it formed part of a continuing act with the later allegation and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. On the merits, the tribunal preferred Mr McBrien's evidence that the discussion was about the school's concerns over maths performance and leadership. It held that the exchange was not unfavourable treatment, was not because of disability-related absences, and would in any event have been a proportionate response to the school's legitimate aim of running an effective and efficient school.

For the reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21, the tribunal rejected each pleaded PCP. It found that requiring work involving writing and note-taking did not put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage on the evidence before it, and that the school did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that such a disadvantage existed. It also held that the school was not required to purchase dictation software or a dictaphone before the claimant indicated what was needed, that the alleged heavy workload between August and September 2017 was not established, that no PCP requiring weekend or late-night work was made out, and that the alleged PCP of managers and staff speaking to the claimant did not show a substantial disadvantage or the necessary knowledge.

The tribunal held that the reasonable adjustments claim was out of time in any event. It found that time began to run by the end of July 2017 at the latest, rejected a just and equitable extension, and dismissed all claims.