Ms S Byfield v The Governing Body of Whitmore High School (1R) and 2 others — 2024

The claimant, Ms S Byfield, was a history teacher at Whitmore High School and the only black member of teaching staff. After a parental complaint on 11 October 2021 about a form lesson, 3R sought safeguarding advice from Mr Redrup and then Ms Devonish. The tribunal found that 3R, Mr Redrup and Ms Devonish were acting on safeguarding concerns and following the processes and advice they understood to apply, rather than treating the claimant less favourably because of race.

The tribunal dismissed the direct race discrimination claim and most of the harassment complaints. It accepted that the claimant was told only that an allegation had been made and that the safeguarding process was being followed, but held that this was not related to race. It also rejected the claimant's case that the referral to safeguarding, the Part 5 meeting, the later disciplinary investigation, the handling of the claimant's complaint against 3R, and the occupational health issue were motivated by racial stereotyping or had a racially harassing purpose or effect. The tribunal relied on the safeguarding guidance, the evidence of the respondents' witnesses, and comparator evidence showing that white teachers had also been referred into safeguarding processes.

One complaint succeeded. The tribunal held that Ms Forte's letter of 24 November 2021, which told the claimant she had conveyed personal views to students that were racist, was harassment related to race. The tribunal found that wording was inherently related to race because it suggested that the claimant herself held racist personal views, rather than accurately summarising the parental complaint about the alleged use of the N word in class. It held that the letter was unreasonably drafted and that it caused the claimant acute distress. That complaint was upheld against the First and Second Respondents.

The tribunal held that the successful complaint was presented out of time, but extended time on just and equitable grounds. It took into account that the claimant initially lacked the full detail of the allegation, that her union was seeking to resolve the matter while the disciplinary and safeguarding processes were ongoing, and that she was unwell during the relevant period. Liability was decided only at this stage; the successful complaint was listed for a remedy hearing and no monetary award was made in this judgment.