In Person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, a teacher with photosensitive epilepsy, succeeded on her reasonable adjustment claim against the first respondent. The tribunal found that the school had a provision, criterion or practice of removing the old projector and replacing it with a touchscreen, and that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because she could not use the touchscreen and had to replan lessons and work around the equipment. It accepted that the claimant had raised the issue over a period of years, and that the new touchscreen was not a solution to her difficulties.

The tribunal found that the first respondent knew the claimant would be disadvantaged and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage. It found that a replacement projector could have been purchased, that the decision to remove the existing projector was made on or around 1 July 2019, and that no effective alternative had been put in place by the time the claimant resigned on 18 September 2019. The claim against the second respondent was dismissed because the tribunal did not find a personal failure on her part; the relevant actions were taken in her capacity as head teacher and employee of the first respondent.

On constructive unfair dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the failure to make a reasonable adjustment amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that removing the projector without sourcing a replacement or alternative seriously affected the claimant's ability to carry out her role and showed disregard for her health and safety concerns. The tribunal also found that the breach was likely to damage the employment relationship, that the claimant resigned in response to it, and that she did not delay or affirm the contract because she resigned only after concluding on 18 September 2019 that there was no plan to restore or source a projector.

In its remedy discussion, the tribunal rejected the respondents' submission for a 100% Polkey reduction from December 2019, finding that the claimant had not said she was leaving then. It also declined to make any deduction for failure to follow the ACAS grievance procedure, noting that the claimant had not raised a formal grievance until four minutes before resignation and that immediate resignation was found to be a response to the breach.