Case 3307531/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Van Rooyen v The Governing Body of King Edwards School Witley — 2020
- Case reference
- 3307531/2018
- Decision date
- 16 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms H T Edwards, Mrs A Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Van Rooyen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs E Van Rooyen worked part-time as a Mathematics Learning Support teacher from 1 September 2010. The tribunal found that her relationship with the head of learning support, Sheila Butler, deteriorated over time, but it did not accept that the contested management decisions were driven by age. On the direct age discrimination case, the tribunal rejected the complaints about A-level allocation, reductions in hours, negative criticism, disciplinary warnings, and CPD/training. It found, among other things, that the claimant had in fact taught A-level students in 2017, that the hours changes were linked to school needs and the school's usual practice, and that the comparator evidence did not show less favourable treatment.
The indirect age discrimination claim also failed. The claimant's alleged PCP was that from 2015 onwards the respondent employed younger teachers, but the tribunal held that this was not proved. It noted that the claimant's age group was the largest age group on the staff breakdown and that the respondent had recruited older staff as well, including Judith Dibb-Fuller at age 57 and Christine Cox at over 60. The tribunal therefore found no PCP disadvantage and dismissed the indirect discrimination claim.
On harassment and constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the claimant regarded the meetings with Sheila Butler on 11 August 2015 and 20 November 2015 as negative and critical, but held that the conduct was not related to age. It also held that the proved conduct did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract. The tribunal found that the claimant resigned, but that she did so because she had been told she would be dismissed during a further disciplinary process, not in response to the conduct she complained of. The tribunal dismissed the remaining claims for unlawful deduction of wages and failure to provide a written statement of new terms and conditions, noting that the claimant's £2,037 wages claim was unsupported and that the respondent's records showed no amount owing. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination. The tribunal rejected allegations including allocation of A-level students, reductions in contracted hours, criticism by Sheila Butler, disciplinary action, and refusal of CPD/training. It found no less favourable treatment on the evidence and no basis for concluding that the claimant was treated adversely because of age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Indirect age discrimination. The alleged PCP was that from 2015 onwards the respondent employed younger people as teachers. The tribunal found that PCP was not proved, noted that the claimant's age group was the largest age group on the staff breakdown, and held there was no disadvantage shown. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant had resigned, but not in response to a repudiatory breach of contract. It held that the proved conduct did not amount to a breach justifying resignation and that she left because she had been advised she would be dismissed during a third disciplinary process. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Age-related harassment. The tribunal accepted that the claimant experienced the meetings with Sheila Butler on 11 August 2015 and 20 November 2015 as hostile, but held the conduct was not related to age and therefore the claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant alleged unpaid wages of £2,037. The tribunal held she gave no explanation for the figure and accepted the respondent's evidence that its records showed nothing owing, so no unlawful deduction was proved. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- less favourable treatment
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
- provision, criterion or practice
- repudiatory breach of contract
- unauthorised deductions from wages under s.13 ERA 1996
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.