XX v Respondent — 2023

The claimant was employed as an assistant headteacher and was dismissed without notice on 9 June 2020 after disciplinary proceedings concerning a message she sent under duress to someone she believed was under 18, and her failure to report it. The tribunal accepted that she had recurrent depressive disorder, which the respondent accepted was a disability, and that she had been in a coercive and controlling relationship when the message was sent. It found that her depression made her more vulnerable to coercion and manipulation, so the conduct leading to dismissal arose from her disability within section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal nevertheless held that the respondent was justified in dismissing her. It accepted the legitimate aim of safeguarding children and mitigating risk of harm, preferred Dr JJ's evidence that the risk of repetition was minimal rather than Dr KK's view that there was no risk, and concluded that dismissal was proportionate and necessary because the respondent needed to address even a minimal safeguarding risk. The disability discrimination claim was therefore dismissed.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal was critical of aspects of the investigation and of the influence of the JEM/LADO process, including the pre-hearing views expressed by AA and DD and the failure to investigate whether there had been multiple messages or images. Even so, it held that the disciplinary panel chaired by EE made its own decision, accepted the claimant's evidence about duress, and did not simply defer to the earlier safeguarding process. The tribunal found the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and was not unfair. It also rejected the wrongful dismissal claim, holding that the conduct was objectively a repudiatory breach of contract and that the explanation of duress did not remove the respondent's right to summarily dismiss.