Ms J Nicholls v Girls Day School Trust and 1 other — 2018

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the Claimant had very long service and was widely regarded as an exceptional music teacher, but also that she could be difficult to manage and that Mr Gray was widely regarded as blunt, rude and intimidating. It accepted that there had been many complaints about Mr Gray and that the School's response to those complaints had often been informal, but it did not find that this amounted to sex discrimination.

On the direct sex discrimination allegations, the tribunal accepted that the School's handling of the Edinburgh trip finance issues, the disciplinary process after 12 July 2018, and the later management decisions were imperfect and at times inconsistent. However, it held that the reasons for the treatment were non-discriminatory: the Claimant's conduct on 12 July 2018, the audit and compliance issues around the Edinburgh trips, and the deterioration of the working relationship with senior management. It rejected the comparison with Mr Gray and found that a hypothetical male comparator would have been treated the same way.

On harassment, the tribunal found that Mr Gray chased the Claimant down the stairs on 12 July 2018 and that this created a hostile and intimidating environment. It nevertheless held that the conduct was not related to sex. The immediate cause was the heated dispute about the Caxton card and the Claimant's remark that she would get rid of him like she had got rid of Dr Lodge. The tribunal also rejected the other harassment particulars, finding that Mr Gray's tone and manner reflected his general rule-enforcing style rather than sex-related conduct, and it rejected the allegation that he manipulated the School into disciplinary proceedings.

On victimisation, the tribunal identified protected acts in the Claimant's grievance of 12 September 2018, her January 2019 appeal materials, and her March and August 2019 grievances. It nevertheless held that the later treatment was not because of those protected acts. The tribunal found that the School was reacting to the unresolved Edinburgh trip issues, the breakdown in relations, and the practical need to manage the Claimant's role, rather than to her discrimination complaints. It also held that several of the complained-of events were not detriments in law.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal treated the 26 March 2019 grievance as the only putative protected disclosure. It found that the Claimant genuinely believed the School might be breaching performance rights law in the way ticket-sale income was handled, but that belief was not reasonable. Because there was no protected disclosure, the Part IVA claims failed. On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the operative dismissal was the summary dismissal on 8 November 2019. It found that the summary dismissal was based on serious conduct: inappropriate emails with students, taking music without authority and intending to disrupt School events, and defying instructions about the cancelled concert. Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses, it held that the dismissal was fair.