Mr. J. Urwin v Communities Academy Trust — 2020

Mr Urwin worked for Communities Academy Trust at Grange Park Primary School from 2014 until his dismissal for gross misconduct on 18 December 2017. The tribunal found that he had PTSD, but also found that he had not disclosed that condition to the respondent, had answered recruitment and occupational health questions in a way that indicated no underlying condition, and had presented the respondent with what it regarded as misleading information about his medical history. The school and its managers observed that he was stressed and anxious during the disciplinary process, but the tribunal found that they did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that he had PTSD.

The unfair dismissal claim was conceded, and the tribunal said that, had it needed to decide the point, the dismissal would have been substantively unfair. Its main criticism was of the handling of the 18 July 2017 school performance incident. The tribunal found that Mrs Brown’s investigation was not conducted with an open mind, that she should not have been the investigator, that Mrs Millington should not have been involved in the initial meeting with the claimant, and that key witnesses were not properly or fairly explored. The tribunal also found that the disciplinary panel relied on flawed conclusions, including an allegation that the claimant had damaged the school’s reputation without evidential basis, and did not properly engage with the Department for Education reasonable force guidance that the claimant tried to raise.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant used some force when he turned child A during the performance incident, and it accepted that he was not entirely justified in his reaction. It therefore found contributory conduct and held that, when remedy was determined, the compensatory award should be reduced by 25% under s.123(6) ERA 1996 and the basic award by 25% under s.122(2) ERA 1996. However, it rejected the respondent’s submission that the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed in any event and so declined to make any Polkey reduction. No remedy sum was determined in this judgment, because remedy was reserved to the same tribunal.

The disability discrimination claims failed. On the s.15 EqA claim, the tribunal held that the respondent did not have the necessary knowledge of the claimant’s PTSD. On the reasonable adjustments claim under ss.20 and 21 EqA, it reached the same conclusion: the respondent had taken reasonable steps to find out about any underlying condition, but the claimant had not disclosed it and the evidence available to the school was consistent with short-term stress and anxiety caused by the disciplinary process. The tribunal therefore found that the duty to make adjustments was not engaged on the facts it accepted.

The harassment claim under s.26 EqA also failed. The tribunal dealt with the pleaded incidents individually and found that they were either not related to disability, did not occur as alleged, or did not have the purpose or effect required by the statute. It concluded that the claimant had been treated unfairly, but that unfair treatment was not itself evidence of discrimination, and it found no basis for inferring that the respondent’s actions were motivated by the claimant’s disability.