Mr J Taylor v Grwp Llandrillo Menai — 2021

The claimant was a lecturer dismissed in April 2019 after disciplinary allegations arising from events in September 2018. The tribunal found that he had been the subject of a written warning earlier in 2018, that he was disabled by Type 1 diabetes at the material time, and that the respondent knew of the condition and had received occupational health advice recommending scheduled breaks for lunch and tea. The tribunal also found that the claimant behaved inappropriately towards female students on 27 September 2018 by entering their personal space and looking at their breasts and bottoms, and that this conduct was not caused by his diabetes or vision problems.

The disability discrimination claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 failed because the claimant did not prove that any unfavourable treatment was because of something arising in consequence of his disability. By contrast, the reasonable adjustments claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondent applied a timetable PCP requiring classes to be taught as scheduled, and that in the context of roadworks on the A55 and the claimant's need to travel between Rhyl and Rhos while also testing, eating and injecting insulin, that PCP placed him at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled staff. The tribunal found that it would have been reasonable to widen the gap between the classes, and also rejected the claimant's alternative reasonable-adjustment argument about the misconduct finding in relation to finishing early.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because, although the respondent honestly believed the claimant had committed misconduct and the tribunal accepted that dismissal for sexually inappropriate conduct towards students could fall within the range of reasonable responses, the investigation was not reasonable. The tribunal was concerned that the respondent did not follow its own disciplinary policy in full, that some witnesses were not properly interviewed or asked to sign statements, and that the investigation report contained inaccuracies that were adverse to the claimant. It found no basis for a further Polkey reduction, but it did find contributory fault and said any basic and compensatory awards would be reduced by 90%.

The breach of contract / wrongful dismissal claim succeeded only to a limited extent. The tribunal held that a dismissal communicated by letter takes effect when received, not when posted, so the claimant was entitled only to pay for 10 to 12 April 2019 because the dismissal letter dated 10 April 2019 was likely received on 12 April 2019. No quantified remedy figures were recorded in the judgment.