Mr A Rozycki, counsel v Respondent — 2023

The claimant joined Rugby School as teacher and housemistress of Southfield in September 2020. Covid disrupted the planned induction, but the tribunal found the respondent provided a substantial induction and support package, including meetings, training, access to materials and informal support, even if it was not everything the claimant wanted. It accepted that the claimant was disabled by cyclical vomiting syndrome/migraine disorder and ADHD, but not that historic depression alone met the statutory test, and it rejected the claimed PTSD diagnosis.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant made protected disclosures about Covid health and safety, GDPR, and safeguarding/KiCSE issues, and that she also made protected acts in disability-discrimination grievances, statements of case and oral complaints. It found that the claimant did not raise her disabilities as such in relation to her conduct before suspension, and that the respondent generally knew only that she had disclosed health conditions which occupational health had said required no restrictions or adaptations.

On the disability claims, the tribunal rejected direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment and reasonable-adjustments claims. It held that the September 2020 investigation, the November 2020 suspension, the disciplinary process, the limitations on return to Southfield, and the accommodation and reintegration arrangements were driven by safeguarding and conduct concerns, and were proportionate in the circumstances. It also rejected the pleaded PCPs about induction, workload and suspension, finding that the respondent had taken reasonable steps to support the claimant.

On whistleblowing and victimisation, most alleged detriments failed, including the grievance and disciplinary findings, the appeal outcome, and the accommodation and removal-cost complaints. The tribunal did, however, uphold limited detriment claims in relation to aspects of the tone and approach of Ian McIntyre's 21 May 2021 outcome letter, finding those aspects unduly harsh and not shown to be uninfluenced by the claimant's protected disclosures and protected acts. It did not uphold the overall sanction, which it said was reduced from dismissal to a final written warning and removal from the housemistress role; it also accepted £3,500 as a reasonable removal-cost figure under the respondent's policy when rejecting the related detriment complaint.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because, although the 25 August 2021 counter-notice ended the contract in law on 17 September 2021, the dismissal was not caused by protected disclosures and the claimant had already accepted and intended to take up a role at NatMatSci. The constructive dismissal claim also failed, the wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claims were withdrawn, and the tribunal left remedy open only for the limited successful detriment findings.