Ms E Ewome v Burnt Mill Academy Trust — 2024

The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over the discrimination complaints because the pleaded acts formed a continuing course of conduct, and in any event it would have been just and equitable to extend time. The claimant had worked for the respondent since 2010 and had been Acting Senior Assistant Headteacher from July 2019; she was the only Black woman in the senior leadership team. The judgment records that the respondent had concerns about behaviour across the school and that the claimant was responsible for behaviour within her role.

On the race discrimination complaint, the tribunal found that the October 2020 performance management review process was handled poorly. Mr Benzid first told the claimant she had passed, then on Mr Hehir's direction told her she had failed and would be monitored, and after half-term the respondent said she had in fact passed. The tribunal accepted that this was upsetting and unfair, but found that the reason was Mr Hehir's view that behaviour in the school remained a serious issue and should be shared across the senior leadership team, not the claimant's race. It accepted Sarah Viccars as an appropriate comparator and found that she was treated similarly in the PMR process.

The tribunal rejected the remaining race allegations. It found that removing behaviour as the claimant's sole remit, giving her Achievement and PiXL, telling Heads of Year that she was no longer in charge of behaviour, the behaviour CPD email involving Ms Viccars and Ms Petrou, the February 2021 email-checking exchange with Mr Omilli, the office move and the June 2021 job offer at another Trust school were all explained by non-racial reasons and did not amount to less favourable treatment because of race. No monetary remedy was awarded because the claim failed.

On the sex discrimination complaint, the tribunal found that the respondent did not operate a PCP requiring staff to tell the Deputy Head every time they needed to go to the toilet. The actual practice was a break-duty arrangement: staff who needed to leave their post were required to notify the duty checker so cover could be arranged. The tribunal found that this applied to all staff, was justified by the need to safeguard pupils during Covid-era break supervision, and did not put women at a particular disadvantage on the evidence before it.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had done protected acts by writing the 1 November 2020 grievance, submitting the 19 January 2021 formal grievance, and issuing the Employment Tribunal claim. It did not accept that the 18 March 2021 complaint, as framed, was itself a protected act. The alleged detriments, including being returned to Mr Benzid's line management, being asked to stay at home pending occupational health advice, being required to wait for updated OH guidance despite conflicting GP notes, and being sent home when she turned up unexpectedly on 5 January, were held to be reasonable management and duty-of-care steps rather than treatment because of protected acts. The tribunal therefore dismissed all claims.