Case 3305900/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Ward v The Governing Body of Kingsbury High School — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305900/2023
- Decision date
- 9 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick
- Panel members
- Ms W Ellis, Ms L Woodward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Ward
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Ward was employed from 2014 as a Visual Impairment Learning Support Assistant. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled by reason of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and that after an asthma attack in 2018 she was allowed to work from home because that reduced exposure to triggers and enabled her to manage her condition better. It found that homeworking involved a substantial majority of her work, principally adapting learning resources, and that the respondent knew she could do that work remotely.
The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed her in January 2023 for capability/long-term sickness absence, but held that the dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 because the stage 3 panel did not properly test the management case. In particular, it accepted inaccurate or incomplete assumptions about how much of the claimant's role had to be done on site, did not properly consider whether on-site duties could be reallocated, and did not realistically explore alternatives such as continued homeworking or part-time work. It accepted that the respondent had consulted and obtained medical advice over a long period, but held that the final decision fell outside the band of reasonable responses.
On the s.15 EqA claim, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of the respondent's assessment that the claimant could not perform her role, and that that assessment arose in consequence of her disability. It rejected the submission that the respondent's treatment was proportionate to the aim of ensuring adequate support for visually impaired students, because no adequate analysis was carried out of less discriminatory options. It also found the reasonable adjustments claim in time should be extended on a just and equitable basis, and then held that requiring the claimant to work from the school premises put her at a substantial disadvantage and that allowing her to work her duties from home would have been a reasonable adjustment. The alternative adjustment of some days at home and some on site failed because, by that stage, the claimant was not prepared to attend the premises. Remedy was left to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal accepted capability/long-term sickness absence as the reason for dismissal but held the dismissal unfair because the stage 3 panel did not properly scrutinise the management case, including whether the claimant could continue to do a substantial part of her job from home or be accommodated by other alternatives. Polkey was reserved for a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | This was the s.15 EqA claim for discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed because of the respondent's assessment that she could not perform her role, and that this assessment arose in consequence of her COPD/asthma and the anxiety/stress linked to those conditions. It rejected the respondent's proportionality defence. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | This was the reasonable adjustments claim concerning a PCP requiring the claimant to work from the school's premises. After extending time, the tribunal held that allowing the claimant to carry out her duties from home would have been a reasonable adjustment and the respondent failed to take that step. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | This was the alternative reasonable adjustments claim that the claimant should be allowed to work some days at home and some days on site. It failed because, by the relevant time, the claimant had made clear that she would not attend the premises, so a hybrid arrangement would not have avoided the disadvantage. |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.15 EqA
- Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- s.20 EqA
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- s.123 EqA
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.