Case 2210360/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Freedman v United Synagogue and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 2210360/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh
- Venue
- Central London
- Panel members
- Mr D Schofield, Mr F Benson
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Dr M Freedman
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr M Freedman, a community rabbi employed by United Synagogue, was dismissed after an incident on 16 May 2022 and after four 'Nursery Crimes' videos were posted to YouTube in July 2022. The tribunal found that he was disabled by reason of ASD, but it rejected the section 15 claim because he did not prove that the conduct relied on by the respondents arose in consequence of that disability.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was misconduct. It found that the investigation, the disciplinary hearing before Anthony Ansell, and the appeal before Andrew Eder were reasonable overall, that there was no predetermination, and that both decision-makers reasonably believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct. The videos were treated as a secondary factor; the principal basis for dismissal was the 16 May 2022 incident.
On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct breached clause 8.2 and clause 14.1 of the contract, transgressed the applicable Halachic boundaries, and was a serious breach of trust and serious misconduct. It held that the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss without notice.
The reasonable adjustments claim failed. The tribunal rejected the alleged PCP of failing to obtain further medical advice before dismissal, rejected the allegation that the disciplinary hearing was conducted in an adversarial manner, and found that sporadic rather than weekly contact during suspension did not establish a disadvantage linked to ASD. It ordered the claimant to pay the respondents' costs of £20,000.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under s.98 ERA 1996; the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was misconduct, the investigation and appeal were reasonable overall, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed; the tribunal found the claimant's conduct breached clause 8.2 and clause 14.1 of the contract, amounted to serious misconduct and gross breach, and entitled the respondent to summarily dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by ASD, but held there was insufficient reliable evidence that the asserted social-boundary difficulties or the conduct relied on were something arising in consequence of that disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal rejected the alleged PCPs of failing to obtain further medical advice before dismissal, conducting the disciplinary process in an adversarial manner, and not having weekly contact during suspension. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods range of reasonable responses
- Sainsbury's v Hitt
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Nelson three-stage test
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- City of Oxford Bus Services v Harvey
- s.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- Spence v Intype Libra Ltd
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.