Case 3322426/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Bentley v The Governing Body of Oaks Park High School — 2025
- Case reference
- 3322426/2021
- Decision date
- 22 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms Jane Houser, Mr Michael Wood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Bentley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal upheld parts of the Claimant's disability discrimination claims. It found direct disability discrimination in relation to the Senior Leadership Team's false descriptions of the Claimant as unhelpful and difficult and of her role as Adaptations Officer, discrimination arising from disability in relation to reprimanding her BSL interpreter on 24 September 2021, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments by allowing her to work from home from 1 September 2020 to 3 February 2021.
The Tribunal also upheld victimisation complaints concerning the false descriptions of the Claimant and her role. It found that statements by Ms Hamill and Ms De Grove were made to persuade Governors not to uphold the grievance and to defend the Senior Leadership Team against the allegation of discrimination; the allegation of discrimination was found to be a significant influence in the treatment. Other complaints, including indirect discrimination and the remaining pleaded matters, were dismissed.
The Tribunal found the successful claims were within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It also stated that, had the earlier acts been out of time, it would have extended time on just and equitable grounds. Remedy was reserved for a separate hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination succeeded in respect of the Senior Leadership Team telling lies by describing the Claimant as unhelpful and difficult and about her role as Adaptations Officer. Other alleged direct disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability succeeded in relation to issue 2.4.1, reprimanding the Claimant's BSL interpreter on 24 September 2021. The remaining complaints of discrimination arising from disability were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of indirect disability discrimination were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded by allowing the Claimant to work from home from 1 September 2020 to 3 February 2021. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation succeeded in respect of the false description of the Claimant as unhelpful and difficult and her role as Adaptations Officer. The allegation about the 19 May 2021 letter and the allegations about Redbridge Council education policy and Department for Education government guidelines were dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 15
- Equality Act 2010 section 19
- Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 21
- Equality Act 2010 section 123
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.