: R McPherson A McMillan Mr J Guetta v East Renfrewshire Council — 2019

The claimant, a Jewish Modern Hebrew teacher, was suspended and later dismissed following complaints that he had shown part of the 18-rated film Waltz with Bashir to S1/S2 pupils and had later given a link to the film to an older pupil. He alleged direct discrimination because of religion in relation to the suspension and investigation process, the inclusion and later dropping of one allegation, the investigation report, the dismissal, the appeal process, and comments made during that process.

The tribunal found that the respondent had sufficient information to proceed to suspension and investigation because the claimant had admitted showing an extract of the film. It found that the inclusion of the allegation about potential incitement of hatred and religious intolerance was based on concerns about the film, the parental complaint, and the context in which the film had been shown, and not because the claimant was Jewish. The tribunal also found that the allegation was later dropped because there was no evidence to support it and that it was not taken into account in the dismissal decision.

The tribunal found that the investigation report was not biased, dishonest, or tainted with anti-Semitism, and that any inaccuracies or missing material were not shown to be because of religion. It found that the dismissal decision was based on the claimant's conduct, namely showing an extract from an 18-rated film to pupils aged around 12 and later giving a link to the film to a 16-year-old despite parental concerns. The direct discrimination claim was dismissed.

On breach of contract, the tribunal found that the disciplinary procedure did not require the respondent to cross-check the initial complaint with the claimant before suspension and investigation. It also found that the 15-day investigation period was aspirational rather than mandatory, that the investigation length was not unusual for a complex investigation involving external witnesses, and that any extension or approach to appeal notification was not actionable because the claimant suffered no financial loss. The breach of contract claim was dismissed.