In Person For the v Respondent — 2018

The tribunal first determined the disability issue under section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted that the claimant had dyslexia, which was an impairment, but held that he had not shown a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities at the material time. The tribunal did not accept that depression was proved as a separate impairment, and it relied on the claimant’s ability to conduct complex litigation, travel, plan holidays, and prepare lengthy documents as evidence inconsistent with a substantial disabling effect. Applying Goodwin and DLA Piper, it therefore held that the claimant was not disabled between 28 June 2014 and 23 March 2016.

Because the claimant was not found to be disabled, the claims for direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and disability-related harassment were dismissed. The tribunal recorded that the respondent’s witnesses were reliable and that, where there was conflict, it preferred the respondent’s evidence. The disability findings also disposed of the claimant’s case that later treatment by the respondent was unlawful disability discrimination.

The victimisation claim was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had done protected acts in earlier grievances and tribunal proceedings, but found no causal link between those acts and the complaints relied on. It held that the September 2014 surveillance arose from concerns that the claimant might be working elsewhere while off sick, not from the protected acts, and it also held that the surveillance complaint was out of time. The letter to the ICO dated 24 March 2016 was found to be substantially true and not detrimental. The tribunal further held that inclusion of earlier tribunal judgments in the disciplinary bundle, the handling of the disciplinary hearing, the dismissal decision, the appeal process, and the failure to shortlist the claimant for the October 2015 vacancy were not motivated by protected acts.

The unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely persistent failure to provide original sick notes in time, failure over several years to complete the DBS renewal process, and refusal to give an undertaking to comply with policy in future. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, Burchell, Iceland Frozen Foods, Foley, Hitt and the ACAS Code, it held that the investigation was thorough, the disciplinary panel had reasonable grounds for its belief, and summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. Although the appeal process did not strictly follow the disciplinary procedure because no appeal hearing was held, the tribunal held that this did not make the dismissal unfair overall.

The wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed. The tribunal held that the claimant’s own conduct amounted to a serious breach of contract, so the respondent was entitled to dismiss summarily. It further held that the use of an independent disciplinary panel, rather than the conflicted headteacher, did not invalidate the contractual process. The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant was lawfully dismissed under his contract.