Case 2410223/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Willisch v Upton Hall School FCJ — 2021
- Case reference
- 2410223/2019
- Decision date
- 9 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Sitting
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mrs A Ramsden, Mr W K Partington
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Willisch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs C Willisch was found to have been disabled with anxiety and depression at all relevant times. She had worked for Upton Hall School FCJ since 2008, became a Head of Year in 2009, and worked part-time from 2011. The tribunal accepted that her workload and particular confrontational situations became harder for her from January 2018, and found that by 2 February 2018 the school, through Mrs Young, knew that she was struggling to cope and that this was linked to her history of depression and anxiety.
On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal upheld two specific failures. It found that the respondent should have removed responsibility for the EPQ students more quickly after the 2 February 2018 meeting, and that it should have proactively offered, in the 30 January 2019 and 28 March 2019 absence-review letters, the options of written representations and a proxy representative rather than leaving the claimant to request adjustments. The tribunal also recorded a limited success on the related point about making clear what adjustments were being provided. Other alleged failures, including additional administrative support, were rejected or found not to be within jurisdiction, and some complaints were treated as time-barred or not part of the same continuing act.
The separate claim for discrimination arising from disability, based on the dismissal decision of 24 October 2019, was dismissed. The tribunal found that the dismissal was treated as unfavourable, and that the reason was the claimant's long-term sickness absence arising from her disability, but held that the respondent had legitimate aims in running the school efficiently, reducing costs, and maintaining teaching and pastoral care. It concluded that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving those aims, and that the available alternatives, including waiting indefinitely, ill-health retirement, and further occupational health referral, did not make dismissal disproportionate. A further hearing was listed to determine remedy on the successful reasonable adjustments complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim partly succeeded. The tribunal upheld failures to remove the EPQ students promptly and to offer, in the 30 January and 28 March 2019 absence-review letters, written representations and proxy attendance / proactive adjustment options; it also recorded limited success on making clear what adjustments were being provided. Other alleged adjustments were rejected, not established, or treated as out of time. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EqA dismissal claim. The tribunal accepted that dismissal was because of long-term sickness absence arising in consequence of disability, but held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aims, so the claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.20(3) EqA 2010
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- section 123 EqA 2010
- Hendricks act extending over a period
- Matuszowicz v Kingston on Hull City Council
- s.15 EqA 2010
- Hardy and Hansons v Lax
- Igen v Wong
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.