Jodie Turner v North Yorkshire County Council and 1 other — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed because of long-term ill-health absence and not because of her opposition to the school becoming an academy. It accepted that the school had genuine concerns about teaching performance in the context of an inadequate OFSTED rating and wider improvement measures, and that the claimant’s development performance plan was introduced as part of that process rather than to force her out.

On disability, the tribunal found that by late October 2018 at the latest the claimant was a disabled person because her anxiety and depression had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities and were likely to last 12 months or more. It accepted that the development plan exacerbated her symptoms, but held that removing or suspending the plan was not a reasonable adjustment because the respondent was entitled to manage performance and had already built supportive measures into the plan. The tribunal also found that allocating a different class would not have removed the disadvantage, and that the proposed Amethyst class was intended as a smaller, supported class rather than a set-up to fail.

On dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent had obtained medical evidence, attempted consultation through meetings and the claimant’s union representative, and had no indication of a likely return to work. It considered that dismissal for capability fell within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal also held that dismissal arose from disability-related absence but was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, including reliable attendance and maintaining teaching provision in a failing school.