Mr S L Lemanski v Coventry University Higher Education Corporation — 2026

Mr Lemanski was employed as a Senior Lecturer from 1 October 2014 and was dismissed with notice on 30 June 2022. The Tribunal found that the principal reason was conduct: the Respondent genuinely and reasonably believed that he had submitted multiple, repetitive and increasingly personal grievances intending to vex it, and had sent all-staff emails despite understanding a clear instruction not to do so. It also believed that trust and confidence had irreparably broken down. Applying the Burchell and band-of-reasonable-responses principles, the Tribunal found that the investigation, disciplinary process, representations hearing and appeal were fair and that dismissal fell within the reasonable band.

The ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal claims were dismissed. The Tribunal found that information contained in Mr Lemanski's complaints about legal compliance, Covid safety or concealment played no part in the dismissal. It accepted that the manner in which he pursued grievances and disregarded the instruction about all-staff emails was genuinely separable from the information disclosed. It therefore found that no protected disclosure was the sole or principal reason for dismissal. His absence from campus or any alleged refusal to return likewise played no part in the dismissal, so the health-and-safety automatic unfair dismissal ground also failed.

The protected-disclosure detriment claim was dismissed because the alleged acts either did not occur as pleaded, were not objectively detrimental, or were not materially influenced by any disclosure. The Tribunal found that the challenged management instructions, proposed meetings, occupational-health referral, data-protection response and commencement of disciplinary proceedings had non-whistleblowing explanations. It consequently did not need to decide whether the communications relied upon were qualifying disclosures. The health-and-safety detriment claim also failed: Mrs Garner said that refusing face-to-face teaching could amount to a disciplinary matter, which was not a detriment, and Mr Lemanski had not left, proposed to leave or refused to return to the workplace.

The Respondent admitted that Mr Lemanski was disabled through the cumulative effect of autism spectrum disorder, anxiety and depression. The Tribunal found that it could reasonably have been expected to know of that disability from 11 June 2018. For the EqA 2010 s.15 claim, it found that the dismissal-related conduct and evidence of the breakdown in trust and confidence were significantly influenced by low mood, direct communication, becoming overwhelmed in stressful situations and a black-and-white sense of right and wrong arising from disability. Dismissal was nevertheless a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining functioning working relationships and a fair disciplinary process. The Tribunal found no lesser measure likely to achieve that aim given the absence at the time of insight, regret or an indication that the conduct would not recur.