A First v B Second Respondent: C — 2024

The Claimant, a Senior Teaching Assistant at a primary school, brought direct and indirect sex discrimination complaints arising from concerns about his mobile phone use, a closed-door one-to-one situation with a pupil, and the use of a "Tippy Toe" reading game. The tribunal heard evidence that staff had reported the Claimant's phone being visible in the classroom and that a pupil had described the game and the phone being seen in a pocket; the School investigated, involved the LADO and police, and later dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct after finding the allegations substantiated.

On the preliminary time-limit issue, the tribunal held that the allegations about suspension and the Head Teacher's alleged passing of false or misleading information to the LADO were out of time, but extended time on a just and equitable basis. It found the delay was short, there was no prejudice to the Respondent, and the evidence had not lost cogency.

The direct sex discrimination complaint failed because the Claimant did not establish facts from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn under section 136 EA 2010 and Madarassy v Nomura. The tribunal found that the mobile phone requirement applied to all staff, that the Claimant was suspended, investigated, disciplined and dismissed because of genuine safeguarding and misconduct concerns, and that a female worker in the same situation would have been treated the same. It also found that the referral to the TRA and DBS was a genuine mistake in identifying the wrong regulatory body, not sex-related treatment.

The indirect sex discrimination complaint also failed. The tribunal accepted that the School applied a PCP that mobile phones must not be out in the classroom when pupils were present and that staff should not be alone with pupils, but it did not accept evidence of a PCP prohibiting physically active games. It found no particular disadvantage to men, no causal link between the PCPs and the Claimant's discipline or dismissal, and in any event held that the measures were a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting pupils.