Case 1305131/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Taylor v NASUWT (National Association Schoolmasters Union Woman Teachers) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305131/2021
- Decision date
- 1 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Taylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Taylor's disability discrimination complaints arose from NASUWT disciplinary proceedings following a Facebook post on 6 January 2021 and his later expulsion from the union. By the time of this hearing, the direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and TULRCA unjustifiable discipline complaints had been withdrawn or treated as withdrawn, leaving live complaints under Equality Act 2010 sections 15, 20/21 and 26. The claimant relied on depression and anxiety and said the union should have taken account of the effects of his disability when dealing with the disciplinary process.
The tribunal first addressed limitation. It held that the 15 December 2021 letter telling the claimant that only the trade-union-membership detriment complaint had been accepted was sent in error, because no actual decision had been made rejecting the discrimination complaints. If the 2022 claim needed an extension of time, the tribunal said it would be just and equitable to extend time at least for the last pleaded act of 5 October 2021, with the question whether earlier events formed conduct extending over a period left for final hearing. The claimant's litigant-in-person status, the erroneous rejection letter, and the informal legal clarification he obtained were relevant factors.
Applying rule 37 and the authorities in Ezsias and Anyanwu, the tribunal refused to strike out any of the remaining discrimination complaints and refused a deposit order. It said there was some scepticism about whether discipline for the Facebook post could amount to unfavourable treatment arising from disability, but that causation and any justification defence were fact-sensitive matters requiring evidence. No monetary remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment, and the remaining discrimination complaints were left to be determined at final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only: discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010, based on the expulsion decision after the Facebook post. The tribunal refused strike out and refused a deposit order; merits to be decided at final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only: reasonable adjustments complaint under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, based on the alleged need for an informal process, consultation, or engagement before formal disciplinary action. The tribunal refused strike out and refused a deposit order. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing only: disability-related harassment complaint under section 26 Equality Act 2010, based on the recording that the claimant's apologies for NASUWT officer meetings were not accepted. The tribunal refused strike out and refused a deposit order. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- rule 37(1)(b) deposit order
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union
- s.123 EqA 2010 just and equitable extension
- s.123(3) conduct extending over a period
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
- Adedeji just and equitable factors
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.