In person For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant worked at Brantridge School from 1 September 2015, later transferred to the respondent under TUPE on 1 January 2018, and relied on disability discrimination, whistleblowing detriment, constructive unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal. The tribunal heard the first and third claim forms only; the second claim form had been withdrawn. The claimant relied on dyslexia, reactive hypoglycaemia and autism, but for the indirect discrimination issues the tribunal identified autism and dyslexia as the relevant conditions.

The tribunal found that the claimant made five protected disclosures: the 21 July 2016 email to Heath Mason, the 20 January 2017 email to Heath Mason, the 8 March 2017 grievance, the 3 April 2017 letter repeating that grievance, and the 29 September 2017 email to OFSTED, the DFE and HSE. Most of the 60 alleged detriments were dismissed because they were not proved, were out of time, or were explained as genuine management or educational decisions rather than treatment on the ground of disclosure. The only whistleblowing detriment upheld was Mr Cole's 6 April 2017 email, which referred to the claimant's letter as blackmail and suggested counter-proceedings or a competency process; the tribunal held that this was a detriment and that Mr Cole was materially influenced by the protected disclosure in the 3 April 2017 letter.

The indirect discrimination claim failed. The tribunal held that several of the alleged provisions, criteria or practices were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for them. For the remaining allegations, the tribunal found that the claimant had not established the necessary PCP, or had not shown group or individual disadvantage, and in some instances accepted that the respondent's actions were justified by the needs and safety of the pupils and the effective running of the school. The reasonable adjustments claim failed for the same broad reasons: the tribunal was not satisfied that the alleged PCPs were PCPs within the meaning of the Equality Act, that they placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, or that the proposed adjustments would have avoided that disadvantage.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal rejected the allegations of manipulated pay, non-payment, absence-policy threats, repeated occupational health harassment, deletion of records, and other alleged conduct said to amount to a breach of trust and confidence. It held that the claimant had not been dismissed, and that the alleged last straw of seeing a generic job advert on 30 April 2018 did not contribute to any repudiatory breach. As no dismissal was found, the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA failed as well. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment.