Ms K Skeavington v The Senad Group Limited Heard: Via Cloud Video Platform in the Midlands (East) Region — 2022

Ms Skeavington was employed as an SEN Specialist Teacher at Maple View School from 20 April 2020 to 26 July 2020. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled by reason of Behcet's disease and bipolar disorder. It found that she worked from home at first, then on site from 11 May 2020, and that by early June there were concerns about her performance and conduct, including the completion of tasks and the way she managed lessons with pupils.

The section 15 discrimination claim succeeded in part. The tribunal found that the claimant's requirement that pupils socially distance, her absence from work from 8 June 2020, and her refusal to attend a face-to-face meeting on 15 June 2020 arose in consequence of her disability, and that those matters were in the minds of Ms Grant and Ms Finn when the probation review process and dismissal were decided. It therefore held that inviting her to a probationary review meeting and dismissing her were unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. The tribunal did not find that the appeal dismissal was because of disability.

The reasonable adjustments claim also succeeded only in part. The tribunal rejected the allegations that the respondent had a PCP of allowing staff to breach social distancing rules, and it found that requiring those on probation to adhere to high performance standards did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. It accepted that allowing children to attend without socially distancing from staff did place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of her Covid-related anxiety and clinical vulnerability, but held by majority that the respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment by not allowing her to work from home during her notice period. The tribunal found the other suggested adjustments were not made out on the evidence.

The harassment claim failed because the tribunal found that the alleged disclosure of the claimant's 'serious mental health problems' to colleagues did not happen as pleaded. It found that comments about her mental health were made privately in the context of a discussion about occupational health and support. The automatic unfair dismissal claim and the section 44 ERA detriment claim also failed: the tribunal found that the dismissal followed a breakdown in trust and confidence rather than the protected health and safety reasons relied upon. The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded because the claimant was available and willing to work from home during her notice period, and the tribunal held that she should have been paid her normal salary from 18 June to 26 July 2020. The extracted judgment text does not set out any monetary remedy award.