Case 1807146/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Taylor v Astrea Academy Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807146/2019
- Decision date
- 19 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore
- Panel members
- Mr K Smith, Mrs J Lee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs D Taylor worked as a teaching assistant at Kingfisher Academy from 2003. She was diagnosed with osteoarthritis in both knees in November 2017. The tribunal accepted that this amounted to a disability, but found that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that she was disabled until 21 June 2019, when she handed over a letter referring to arthritis.
The school had already decided, after a review linked to staffing and the forthcoming OFSTED inspection, to move her from KS2 to FS1 from September 2019. The tribunal found that the 26 June 2019 meeting note about a capability issue referred to the claimant's ability to do the role, not to disability. It also found that the claimant agreed to trial FS1 work and to a workplace assessment, and preferred the respondent's evidence that she did not complain of arthritic pain during the trial days.
The disability discrimination claims failed because the claimant was not required to work in FS1 against her agreement, there was no unfavourable treatment, and there was no PCP requiring bending, lifting, or working at low levels unaided. The tribunal said that, if it had needed to consider justification, the school's aim of staffing the new role with someone qualified would have been legitimate and proportionate.
The constructive dismissal claim also failed. Applying the implied term of trust and confidence and section 98 ERA 1996, the tribunal held that nothing the respondent did was likely to destroy or seriously undermine trust and confidence, and that the claimant had affirmed her contract by acting as if she would return in September 2019. Remedy was not considered and the listed remedy hearing was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claim was pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the respondent did not dismiss the claimant, there was no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and the claimant affirmed her contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 claim for discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal found no unfavourable treatment when the claimant was moved to FS1 and held that, in any event, any such treatment would have been proportionate. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found no PCP requiring the claimant to work in FS1 or to bend, lift, sit or kneel unaided, and no failure to make adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA implied term of trust and confidence
- Leeds Dental Team Ltd v Rose objective test
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 paragraph 20 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.