MRS J LUCAS v John Kyrle High School and 6th Form Centre — 2020

Mrs J Lucas was employed by John Kyrle High School and 6th Form Centre as Director of Performance and Head of Drama from 1 January 2015 until her dismissal on 31 March 2017. The tribunal accepted that the Summer 2016 Drama results were poor, but found that the school then moved from a capability issue to allegations of gross misconduct: wilful failure to teach, misleading grade predictions, falsification of performance management records, reputational damage, breach of Teachers' Standards, breach of trust and confidence, and later a safeguarding issue.

The tribunal found that the claimant's symptoms began after a Blandford Fly bite in 2015 and progressed into sero-negative arthritis. It held that the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, by 17 November 2015 that she had a disability within the Equality Act 2010. The claimant had repeatedly told Mr Phillips about worsening pain, fatigue, reduced grip, difficulty writing, and the need for support. The tribunal found that the respondent's existing steps, such as time off the duty rota, reduced lessons, and offers of typing or an amanuensis, were too little, too late, or impracticable, and that teaching support, changes to her role, and proper consideration of her condition in the investigation and disciplinary process would have reduced the substantial disadvantage.

On the dismissal and union claims, the tribunal drew adverse inferences from Mr Griffiths' absence as a witness and from emails about the claimant's union work, including the Bradford Factor request, the FIGJAM email, and the letter warning about unsubstantiated allegations. It concluded that the decision to move to a misconduct process, rather than a capability process, was driven by animus towards the claimant's trade union activities and by a desire to maximise the allegations against her. On that basis the automatic unfair dismissal claim and the trade union detriment claim succeeded. The tribunal also found ordinary unfair dismissal, holding that the investigation was not even-handed and that dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses; it applied the Burchell approach and s.98(4) ERA 1996 in reaching that conclusion.

The direct disability discrimination claim failed. The tribunal found that a hypothetical non-disabled comparator, engaged in the same union activity and presenting the same exam results, would have been treated in the same way. However, the discrimination arising from disability claim succeeded: the poor exam results were the relevant 'something', and the claimant's ill-health was found to have played a significant part in those results, particularly the written exam preparation and the working-towards grades.

The tribunal also upheld the reasonable adjustments claim. It found that the respondent had applied a practice of requiring the claimant to teach to a good standard without additional support, and that this placed her at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled staff. The tribunal held that the respondent should have taken account of the claimant's disability when deciding how to respond to the results, the investigation, and the disciplinary hearing. The safeguarding allegation was treated as misconduct, but the tribunal found that, even standing alone, it would not have justified dismissal. Dismissal without notice was also held to be wrongful. No remedy figure was determined in the liability judgment; the matter was left for a further hearing.