Ms C Russell v Urbis Academy Trust and 1 other — 2022

Ms C Russell was Headteacher of Mayville Primary School and was suspended in July 2018 after exit interviews and written complaints raised safeguarding concerns. The Respondent referred the matter to the LADO and police, commissioned an independent safeguarding review, and then instructed an external HR consultant, Daniella Glynn, to conduct a disciplinary investigation. The tribunal found that these steps arose from the safeguarding information received and not from race or any pre-determined plan to dismiss her.

The disciplinary panel found 11 allegations proven. The tribunal accepted findings that the Claimant had failed to record or properly investigate safeguarding concerns about YZ, including allegations that a child was locked in a room, that a child was made to stand on one leg, and that a child was threatened with a slap. It also found that she breached the terms of suspension by contacting people when told not to do so, and that she accepted recruitment-agency vouchers totalling £375 without declaring them. The panel treated the proven matters as gross misconduct and summarily dismissed her on 19 October 2019 without notice. The tribunal held that the investigation, the hearing and the appeal were fair, that the Respondent genuinely and reasonably believed the misconduct allegations, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

The race discrimination claim failed because the tribunal did not find facts from which it could infer that the Claimant’s race, or YZ’s race, was a reason for the suspension, investigation, dismissal or appeal outcome. It rejected the allegation of conspiracy, found no evidence that Mr Harding, Mrs Barella, Ms Glynn or the disciplinary panel acted because of race, and held that Mrs Barella and Ms Varndell were not proper comparators because they were not in the same position as the Claimant.

The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal held that the Claimant had not done a protected act because she had said colleagues were referring to YZ’s accent because she was Nigerian, but had not alleged that this was discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010. Even if that had amounted to a protected act, the tribunal found that the Respondent’s actions were taken because of the safeguarding complaints and related misconduct allegations, not in retaliation. No monetary award was made.