Ms L Redman (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024

The tribunal accepted that the School had a genuine business reason to reorganise the way the swimming pool and related attendance/welfare work were managed, and that there was a need for more time to be devoted to the pool. It therefore found that dismissal for SOSR was a potentially fair reason. However, the tribunal held that the respondents did not act reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient for dismissal because they did not conduct a meaningful consultation, did not provide the new job descriptions in time, did not properly consider part-time, job-share or flexible-working alternatives, and left the Claimant at home for about three months while the position remained unresolved.

On age discrimination, the tribunal found that Ms Appelby told the Claimant on 24 November 2021, in substance, 'We're not all going to be here forever'. It held that the comment was inherently ageist and less favourable treatment because of age. The tribunal also held that the dismissal itself was an act of age discrimination: by the time of the restructuring meeting on 2 February 2022, the new structure had effectively been decided, the Claimant was told she would have to apply for any new role, and the process was handled in a way that reflected an expectation that she would retire rather than take up a post in the new structure.

The remaining age discrimination allegations failed. The tribunal did not find that the failure to arrange first aid training or the failure to install Operoo software amounted to less favourable treatment on the facts found. It also found that the disciplinary investigation and suspension were disproportionate and unnecessary, but that the Claimant had not established a prima facie case of age discrimination for that allegation. The tribunal held that the 24 November 2021 comment and the dismissal formed part of a continuing act, so the earlier comment was in time. No remedy figure is recorded in this judgment.