Case 1807889/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Black v Meadowhead School Academy Trust Heard: in Sheffield — 2024
- Case reference
- 1807889/2023
- Decision date
- 5 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
- Panel members
- Ms J Lee, Ms P Pepper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Black
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Paul Black worked for Meadowhead School Academy Trust from 1 September 2021 to 14 September 2023, first as Student Engagement Manager and later as Alternative Provision Co-ordinator with Duke of Edinburgh and Forest School responsibilities. In 2022 the new role was timetabled to include internal seclusion room (ISR) and on-call duties. The claimant later told the respondent that he had knee and back injuries from military service, and the respondent accepted that he was disabled.
On the reasonable adjustments complaint, the tribunal held that the claimant did not show that ISR duties placed him at a substantial disadvantage, because he could stand up, walk around the ISR room and take micro-breaks, although he could not lie down there to stretch. It accepted that on-call duties involving stairs did put him at a substantial disadvantage, but found that the respondent knew of that disadvantage by 29 November 2022 and removed on-call duties in January 2023. When on-call was later reintroduced, it was at the claimant's request and with reduced flexibility. The tribunal also held that the reasonable adjustments complaint, so far as it related to events before 8 February 2023, was out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal held that the initial July 2022 timetable allocating 20% of time to ISR and on-call was not a breach of contract, and that the later handling of adjustments did not amount to a breach. It did find that the timetable sent in July 2023, which allocated a significantly increased amount of ISR and on-call work, was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence without reasonable and proper cause. However, it found that Mr Black had already decided to leave after receiving a job offer on 17 July 2023 and resigned in September because of that offer rather than in response to the breach, so the constructive dismissal claim failed.
The victimisation claim was withdrawn on the third day of the hearing. As all substantive claims were dismissed or withdrawn, the tribunal made no remedy award and no remedy hearing was required.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment headnote refers to unfair dismissal, but the issues and reasons treated this as a constructive unfair dismissal claim under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal held that the July 2023 timetable was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, but found that the claimant resigned because he had already accepted another job, not in response to that breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled, but held that ISR duties did not place him at a substantial disadvantage and that the on-call/stairs disadvantage had been removed by January 2023. It also held that complaints about events before 8 February 2023 were out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Withdrawn on the third day of the hearing. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was no longer relying on the victimisation allegations in support of constructive dismissal, and no costs application was made in respect of the late withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- section 21 Equality Act 2010
- paragraph 20 of Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton
- Newham Sixth Form College v Sanders
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.