Case 2300271/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Plummer v Education for the 21st Century Heard — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300271/2020
- Decision date
- 1 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Members
- Panel members
- Ms N Beeston, Ms Y Walsh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Plummer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Plummer had a mental impairment consisting of severe symptoms of anxiety. It accepted that the condition caused confusion when stressed, a preference to keep busy, insomnia and panic attacks, and held that those effects were long term, so he was disabled for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010. It also found that Education for the 21st Century did not know he was disabled at the material time: at interview he did not disclose a disability, he later said he had previously suffered from depression but no longer did so, and his reference to anxiety when flying was not enough to put the respondent on notice.
The direct disability discrimination claim failed because the tribunal accepted Ms Codling’s evidence that Mr Plummer was dismissed for performance and conduct reasons, not because of disability. Those reasons included lack of preparation for handover day, difficulty with the fire alarm practice, poor management of staff, failure to induct cleaning staff, failure to prepare holiday handover notes, inappropriate language, inappropriate text messages and incomplete defect lists. The tribunal held that these reasons had nothing whatsoever to do with his anxiety and were the effective cause of the dismissal on 24 September 2019.
The harassment claim also failed. The tribunal did not accept that the alleged bullying, disclosure of his mobile number, requirement to do work he had no knowledge of, or request to fix the alarm were proved on the evidence. It further held that there was no credible basis for linking such conduct to disability. The protected disclosure claim failed because the tribunal found that Geoff Bruce played no part in the dismissal and that Mr Plummer did not make the alleged disclosure to Ms Moorey about contract prices, so it was not shown that he was dismissed because he had blown the whistle. The unpaid wages claim failed because his contract provided that additional hours were not separately payable unless agreed in advance and overtime authorised. The holiday pay claim was settled by agreement for £130.50 net and was dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim based on the dismissal of 24 September 2019. The tribunal found the respondent did not know Mr Plummer was disabled at the material time and accepted that the dismissal was for performance and conduct reasons unrelated to disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability claim alleging bullying, disclosure of his mobile number, requiring him to do unfamiliar work, and asking him to fix the alarm. The tribunal found the alleged conduct was not proved and, in any event, not shown to be related to disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal / protected disclosure claim. The alleged disclosures were that Geoff Bruce was 'on the fiddle' and that supplier quotes only cost £1,000 or £424. The tribunal found Mr Bruce played no part in the dismissal and found Mr Plummer did not make the alleged disclosure to Ms Moorey. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages for two hours per day between 14 and 30 August 2019 while on holiday. The tribunal held the contract did not entitle him to extra pay unless agreed in advance and overtime authorised. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim resolved by agreement. The judgment records that the respondent agreed to pay £130.50 net in full and final settlement, and the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Settled |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £131
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Madarassy v Nomura International
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Jhuti v Royal Mail
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.