Mr P Crammond of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant was accepted to be disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, and the respondent knew of her condition. The tribunal did not infer discrimination simply from the headmaster’s absence from the hearing. It found that the earlier complaints about training refusals and the September/October 2015 discipline incident were either out of time or, on the evidence, not linked to disability.

The reasonable adjustments complaint failed. The tribunal found that the respondent did not apply the alleged requirement to work in Reception during the phased return, did not require the claimant to do display work without a step-stool, did not impose a need to do planning or marking in her own time, and did not deprive her of the ability to stretch or walk during intervention work. It found that the step-stool was acquired within a reasonable period and that the intervention area had adequate space. No breach of sections 20 and 21 was established.

The tribunal upheld the section 15 and harassment complaints arising from later incidents, beginning in December 2016. It accepted that the headmaster told the claimant, among other things, that he could do whatever he liked, that they were all under pressure and working hard, that he did not ever want her to return to work, and that she could no longer attend hospital appointments in working time. It also accepted the comments about sickness absence causing stress, extra work and financial stress, and the remark “There is the door” in March 2017. These were found to be unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and unwanted conduct having the requisite harassing effect.

The tribunal also upheld victimisation. It found that berating the claimant for raising her voice to children, when others were not challenged in the same way, and the disclosure at the 3 May 2017 staff meeting that she had raised a grievance, amounted to victimisation, alongside harassment and, in the latter instance, section 15 unfavourable treatment. The tribunal applied the time-limit and continuing-act principles under section 123 EqA 2010, holding that the pre-December 2016 allegations were out of time and that the later matters formed the relevant period of unlawful conduct. A remedy hearing was to be listed separately.