Dr S Stothard v Durham University — 2020

Dr S Stothard worked for Durham University in CEM and was suspended on 28 September 2018 after a TES article alleged that the Buckinghamshire grammar schools entrance test had been marked differently for out-of-county children. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had reason to investigate the matter, but held that the decision to suspend the claimant was an over-hasty reaction and that her suspension was not a neutral act. It found that the respondent could have secured the relevant electronic evidence by restricting access and could have considered less serious alternatives, such as asking for an explanation, restricted duties, or a short period of leave.

The tribunal also found that the respondent did not deal appropriately with the claimant's grievances of 12 and 23 October 2018, or with her whistleblowing complaint of 5 November 2018. It held that the grievance procedure point in the respondent's regulation should be read as written and that the claimant was entitled to have her complaints considered rather than being diverted into a suspension review meeting. As to whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the complaint was not investigated at all, although it was not satisfied that the failure to investigate was caused by the protected disclosure rather than by misunderstanding.

The claimant resigned on 22 November 2018 and the tribunal found that she resigned because the respondent's conduct had destroyed trust and confidence. It accepted that the suspension, the handling of the grievances, and the failure to address the whistleblowing complaint each amounted to a fundamental breach of contract, and that the claimant resigned in response without affirming the contract. The constructive dismissal complaint therefore succeeded, and the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair under ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996. The tribunal also upheld the reasonable adjustments complaint, finding that the suspension and investigation placed the claimant, who suffered from colitis, at a substantial disadvantage and that the respondent had not taken reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage. Remedy was left for a later hearing.