Teacher X v Rainbow Education Multi Academy Trust — 2023

Teacher X had worked for the respondent for 20 years and was acting deputy headteacher when the respondent investigated historical allegations made by several female staff members. The tribunal did not decide whether the underlying conduct occurred, but it found the reason for dismissal was conduct and that the respondent held a genuine belief that misconduct had occurred.

The tribunal held, however, that the belief was not based on reasonable grounds because the investigation by Caroline Prosser was not fair, independent or thorough. It found she knew of the earlier TRA outcome involving the former headteacher F, did not interview F about the 2018 A allegation despite his having investigated it and seen CCTV, and did not properly test the evidence about the passage of time, the school's hugging culture, or the possibility of innocent explanations for the allegations made by A, B, C, D and E.

The tribunal also found that the report effectively pre-judged the allegations and that Nigel Court and Andrea Shillinglaw accepted it without proper scrutiny. The refusal to adjourn the disciplinary hearing despite the claimant's sickness absence and preparation difficulties, and the appeal being conducted by Andrea Shillinglaw alone rather than the respondent's usual appeal panel, meant the unfairness was not cured. The unfair dismissal claim was upheld and adjourned to a remedy hearing; issues of contribution and wrongful dismissal were left for the later remedy stage, and the sex discrimination claim had been withdrawn.