Mr A McFarlane Mr H P Boyd (on 9,10, 11, 12, & March 2020) Mr M Sutherland v - Advocate Glasgow City Council — 2023

Mr M Sutherland, a probationer mathematics teacher with Asperger Syndrome, brought claims against Glasgow City Council arising from his placements at All Saints Secondary School and Hillpark Secondary School. The tribunal found that he was a disabled person for Equality Act 2010 purposes and that, across both schools, he was given a structured programme of mentoring, observations, feedback and support intended to help him meet the GTCS standards for full registration. It preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses where there was conflict and did not accept the claimant's broader case that staff were acting against him because of his disability.

The harassment claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that it had not been proved that Lynne Scartaccini made the alleged remark on 11 October 2017 or behaved in the other ways alleged on 30 October 2017 and 11 January 2018, and it rejected the alleged comment attributed to Fiona Downey. On the facts accepted by the tribunal, Lynne Scartaccini's involvement arose from her role as Faculty Head and mentor, including discussing whether Asperger Syndrome might affect classroom behaviour management and advising on the tone of an email. Those matters were not found to be unwanted conduct related to disability with the purpose or effect required by section 26 EqA 2010.

The victimisation claim was also dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the solicitor's letter of 25 April 2018 complaining of disability discrimination was a protected act, and that the issues raised at the meeting on 8 June 2018 were also to be treated as protected acts. However, it found that the sharing of the Case Overview Report from All Saints to Hillpark was standard practice when a probationer teacher moved schools and received an extension, and that no undertaking had been given that the report would not be shared. The tribunal further found no detriment: it was not persuaded that disclosure of the report disadvantaged the claimant or changed the attitude of Hillpark staff towards him.

The reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 EqA 2010 was dismissed after a more detailed analysis of PCPs. The tribunal accepted that assessing the claimant's one-to-one interactions with pupils in relation to presentation and non-verbal cues, assessing his rapport with other staff, and requiring him to teach classes with behavioural difficulties without a classroom assistant did place him at a substantial disadvantage compared with a non-disabled probationer teacher. It did not accept, however, that the proposed adjustments would have been reasonable or effective: excluding rapport with staff from assessment would have conflicted with the GTCS standards, the suggested specialist input was too undefined to show a practical difference, and removing pupils or providing an ASN teacher or classroom assistant to manage behaviour would have been unreasonable. No award was made.