Mr R Anderson, counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant was a long-serving deputy headteacher/associate headteacher at Immanuel College whose hours reduced over time at her request. After Jane Tiller announced her intention to retire in November 2020, the governing body agreed in principle on 24 November 2020 to replace the Executive Headteacher role with a standalone Headteacher role at Immanuel College, with the Associate Headteacher role to disappear subject to formal approval and consultation. On 2 December 2020, Carol Dewhurst and Denise Stirling told the claimant that a formal restructure would begin in January 2021 and that they would be looking to make her post redundant. The tribunal accepted this was a heads-up rather than a formal dismissal, and noted that redeployment was not mentioned in that meeting.

The direct age discrimination claim failed. The tribunal found that the decision in principle to delete the Associate Headteacher role was strategically and commercially understandable after Ms Tiller announced retirement, and that it was not taken because of the claimant’s age. It rejected the case that the claimant was being sidelined or that the respondent was removing her because she was older. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been treated less favourably than a real or hypothetical comparator because of age.

The indirect age discrimination claim also failed. The tribunal rejected the pleaded PCPs that the respondent was dismissing or selecting high-earning senior leaders to reduce the wage bill or to facilitate a transition to a new leadership team. It found the actual PCP was that, once an Executive Head role ceased to be required, the Associate Headteacher role(s) would also be made redundant subject to formal consultation. The tribunal held that this did not create a particular disadvantage linked to age, so the justification issue did not arise.

The unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found there was no dismissal on 2 December 2020 and no dismissal when the claimant resigned on 10 December 2020. It held that the claimant reasonably understood from the 2 December meeting that redundancy was likely, but not that she had been formally dismissed with termination on 30 April 2021. The tribunal found that the claimant then chose to leave on 31 August 2021 as an 'official retiree', which it treated as an agreed termination rather than a dismissal. The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed for the same overall reason: there was no repudiatory breach, and in any event the claimant affirmed any breach by agreeing to remain until the end of August 2021. No remedy was awarded.