Mrs Lynne Marie Francis First v Durham County Council Second Respondent: Mrs Anita Boyd Third Respondent: Mrs Carole Barclay — 2022

Mrs Lynne Marie Francis, a deputy head teacher at Shotton Hall Primary School, brought disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claims about events from November 2016 to her resignation on 13 July 2018, together with complaints about the reference issued afterwards. The tribunal accepted that her Morton's Neuroma was a physical disability known to Durham County Council. It did not accept that she had proved a separate disability of depression, finding that the evidence pointed to work-related stress and that the council did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of depression.

Applying section 136 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal dismissed the remaining disability discrimination complaints. It found that the November 2016 classroom reorganisation was resolved by an immediate adjustment after discussion, and it rejected the complaints about return-to-work meetings, the letter of management advice, grievance handling, the late salary payment, the subject access request handling, the £10 electronic-disclosure fee and the £289.87 charge for hard copies, and the AMI notes and meetings, because the claimant had not shown the required link to disability or a sufficient detriment.

The separate harassment allegations also failed. The tribunal held that the complained-of conduct was not established as conduct related to disability for section 26 purposes, and that the claimant had not shown that the conduct created the relevant hostile or humiliating environment. All complaints against Mrs Boyd and Mrs Barclay were dismissed, and the tribunal held that Mrs Boyd was not personally liable on the reference issue because she was acting in the course of her employment and on legal advice.

The only successful discrimination complaint was victimisation under section 27 in relation to references. After the ET1 had been presented and served, the council ceased confirming that there had been no disciplinary or safeguarding issues, despite earlier draft compromise papers and an initial post-resignation reference doing so; the tribunal found no adequate explanation and held the first respondent liable. The constructive dismissal claim failed: applying the implied term of trust and confidence and the Kaur last-straw approach, the tribunal found no fundamental breach, and treated the 5 July 2018 AMI incident as no more than an innocuous or trivial episode. The judgment was liability-only and a private preliminary hearing was to be listed to deal with remedy.