In person v Respondent — 2025

The Tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed for conduct, principally inappropriate conduct towards Student A through Facebook messages, together with matters concerning his previous volunteer dismissals that had not been disclosed to the Respondent and undertaking additional work while suspended. Applying BHS v Burchell and section 98(4) ERA 1996, it found that the Respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds, had carried out a reasonable investigation and disciplinary process, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

The direct age discrimination complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the alleged comment about someone in their 40s being friends with someone in their 20s was not proved in that form; the recorded statement was a question about sharing accommodation with someone much younger, asked to help the Claimant see how his behaviours might be perceived. It also found that the dismissal was in no sense whatsoever because of age.

The direct sexual orientation discrimination complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the disciplinary panel chair asked about the phrase "spaghetti is not straight when wet" because she did not know what it meant and wanted to understand it, and that this was not less favourable treatment or because of sexual orientation. It found that the Claimant's comparators were materially different and that the dismissal was solely because of the misconduct found to have taken place.