Case 1403027/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Claimant v Greenwood v Pinewood School Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 1403027/2019
Decision date: 5 October 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Oliver
Venue: Bristol
Panel members: Ms P Simpson, Mr H Launder

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Greenwood v Pinewood School Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant had worked at Pinewood School since 2006 and applied in March 2019 for a full-time maths teacher post in the Prep school. The tribunal found that some pre-interview matters were not discriminatory: as an internal candidate she was not required to submit a formal application form or written reference, there was no lesson observation for either candidate, and the same interview panel was used for both candidates.

The direct sex discrimination claim succeeded in relation to the interview questions and scoring on wider contribution outside the classroom. The tribunal found that Mr Hoyland's questions about boarding, boys' rugby and cricket, minibus driving, and other extra-curricular contribution, together with the way the claimant was scored, were tailored to Mr Crossley's strengths and the claimant's weaknesses. It treated remarks and descriptors such as 'gentle', 'schoolmaster', and 'presence' as part of the facts from which an inference of sex-based treatment could be drawn, and rejected the respondent's explanation for the scoring.

The harassment claim succeeded in relation to the 27 March 2019 feedback meeting. The tribunal found that Mr Hoyland's comparison of the claimant with named male teachers as 'big characters' was unwanted conduct related to sex, and that it had the effect of violating her dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The same comments were not decided as direct discrimination because that incident was treated as harassment.

The tribunal also upheld indirect sex discrimination. It found that the role carried a PCP requiring boarding duty that could involve working until 9.45pm, that this put women with childcare responsibilities at a particular disadvantage compared with men, and that it placed the claimant at that disadvantage because she was responsible for childcare for her two children. It further upheld victimisation, finding that the respondent failed to progress her request to move from four to five days and teach full-time in Pre-Prep because she had lodged a grievance and did not wish to withdraw it. A separate remedy hearing was listed for 4 December 2020, and no monetary award was made in this liability judgment.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	Partly upheld. The tribunal rejected the complaints about not requiring a formal application form or written reference, the decision not to conduct a lesson observation, the composition of the interview panel, and the 27 March 2019 comments (which were dealt with under harassment), but found that the interview questions and scoring on wider contribution outside the classroom were less favourable treatment because of sex.	Upheld	Sex	—
Harassment	Upheld in relation to the 27 March 2019 feedback meeting. The tribunal found that Mr Hoyland's comparison of the claimant with named male teachers as 'big characters' was unwanted conduct related to sex and had the effect of violating her dignity and creating the proscribed environment.	Upheld	Sex	—
Other	Indirect sex discrimination. The tribunal found that the role included a PCP requiring boarding duty that could involve work until 9.45pm, that this put women with childcare responsibilities at a particular disadvantage compared with men, and that it put the claimant at that disadvantage. No justification case was advanced.	Upheld	Sex	—
Victimisation	Upheld in relation to the claimant's request to move from four to five days and teach full-time in Pre-Prep. The tribunal found the real reason the request was not progressed was that she had lodged a grievance and would not withdraw it in settlement discussions.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

13 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.