Mrs P Bradley v The Governing Body of St Edward’s Catholic Primary School — 2019

Mrs P Bradley brought claims of indirect age discrimination and unfair dismissal arising from the end of her fixed-term teaching contract at St Edward’s Catholic Primary School. The tribunal found that the respondent had decided not to renew her fixed-term contract after 31 August 2017 and instead to recruit by open competition for a permanent full-time class teacher post. It rejected the age discrimination claim because it was not satisfied that the respondent had adopted a PCP of appointing someone on the lower end of the pay scale, noting that the post was advertised on M1 to M6 and that the school had budgeted up to M6 for the role.

On the age claim, the tribunal also found that the claimant had not shown the disadvantage alleged. It accepted that the claimant was 60 and on M6, but held that on the evidence she was in the same position as her comparators up to around age 35 and had not established a particular disadvantage linked to age. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim under section 19 Equality Act 2010.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal fell within section 95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when the fixed-term contract expired, and that the respondent had a substantial reason for dismissal in moving to an open recruitment process for a permanent teacher. However, it found the dismissal unfair under section 98(4) because the respondent did not properly follow its own temporary/fixed-term contract policy, did not objectively assess the applications against the person specification, did not adequately take account of the claimant as a person who was effectively at risk when shortlisting, and did not properly consult her about suitable alternative employment.

The tribunal specifically noted that there was some teaching work available from September 2017 after Clare Williams did not secure the other role, but the claimant was not considered for that available work before it was offered elsewhere. It therefore concluded that the dismissal was unfair and listed the matter for a remedy hearing, including Polkey submissions. No monetary award was fixed in the liability judgment.