Ms F Jowett v Hampshire County Council and 1 other — 2022

The claimant, a special needs teacher, had made protected disclosures in January, March and April 2018. The tribunal found that the governors who dismissed her in September 2019 did not know the detail of those disclosures and did not rely on them. It also found that the new head teacher was not influenced by the protected disclosures when instigating the procedure that led to dismissal. The protected disclosure detriment complaints relating to the 2018 redundancy process and observations were out of time, and the later procedure-related detriment complaints failed because they were based on attendance concerns.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was capability, specifically absences and their effect on the school. However, it held that the respondent did not follow its own attendance management procedure. The claimant had not been taken through stage 1 and stage 2 formal warnings before the governors' dismissal committee treated the matter as a stage 3 dismissal case. On that basis, the dismissal was unfair.

For disability discrimination, the respondent conceded disability, and the tribunal found the claimant was disabled by depression and/or ME. The tribunal held that most absences were because of disability, and that dismissing without first following the warning procedure was unfavourable treatment arising from disability which the respondent could not justify. It also found that failing to maintain the claimant's previous Wednesday PPA and non-working time arrangement placed her at a substantial disadvantage and was a failure to make a reasonable adjustment.