Mr G Day-Davies v United Learning Trust — 2019

Mr Day-Davies was employed by United Learning Trust as a teacher and the respondent accepted that he was disabled by reason of Bipolar 1 Disorder Rapid Cycling and ankylosing spondylitis. The case was heard under sections 15 and 20-21 of the Equality Act 2010 after a long sequence of meetings, sickness absences, occupational health referrals, adjustments to timetable and cover, and grievance correspondence. The tribunal rejected direct discrimination, harassment and indirect discrimination before the hearing, and the live issues were discrimination arising from disability and reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal upheld the complaint about the claimant's continuing medical suspension in September 2017, but not the initial decision to suspend him. It found that the respondent was justified in the initial suspension on 5 September 2017 because, after the claimant had reported a recent overdose and relayed Dr Cooper's view from the telephone occupational health consultation that he was unfit for work, the school had no contrary medical evidence and was entitled to act on welfare and safety concerns. However, the tribunal held that continuing the suspension to 13 September 2017 was not justified, and that the blanket terms preventing contact with colleagues were also not justified on the evidence before it.

The tribunal also upheld the claim about the stage 1 absence warning under the respondent's absence management procedure. It found that the warning was issued because disability-related absences triggered the policy, that the respondent's own policy said disability-related absences should not be counted, and that the warning therefore amounted to unfavourable treatment arising from disability and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The warning was later withdrawn on appeal by Frank McCarron for the same reason.

All other disability discrimination claims failed, apart from two reasonable-adjustment issues that the claimant withdrew. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the claimant had been banned from sending emails, finding instead that the respondent had only encouraged him to reduce the volume of emails and to communicate verbally or face to face where possible. It also dismissed claims about mediation, the application of the return-to-work policy, funding private psychiatric treatment, disability-awareness training, the handling of grievances, the relocation of classrooms, and the alleged failure to share disability-related information. In each of those issues the tribunal either found no workable PCP, no substantial disadvantage, no relevant knowledge, or no reasonable adjustment that would have been effective.

No final monetary award was fixed in the judgment. The tribunal said the claimant was entitled to compensation, but invited the parties to try to agree remedy and left open a further remedy hearing if agreement was not reached. It observed that there appeared to be no financial loss from the warning, that the suspension had been on full pay, and that any injury to feelings caused by the two successful acts would likely fall within the lower Vento band.