Personnel

Teacher wins £850,000 following claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination and victimisation

Posted on October 9th, 2024

In the case of M Wright v The Governing Body of Cardinal Newman Catholic School and C Jarman, the employment tribunal (ET), considered claims of unfair dismissal, victimisation and discrimination.

Background

Mr Wright had been employed by Cardinal Newman Catholic School since 2005 and, until his dismissal, was employed as head of mathematics. In 2014, a colleague of Mr Wright’s had raised several grievances at the school relating to age and disability discrimination plus victimisation. He subsequently brought an ET claim against the school. Mr Wright assisted his colleague with the grievances and gave evidence in support at the ET.

Allegations

In December 2014, the school carried out an investigation into allegations that Mr Wright had failed to attend an event at the Brighton Dome, which he was required to attend, and that he had left work early on one occasion without authorisation. Mr Wright’s doctor wrote to the school to explain that on both occasions, Mr Wright had been suffering from atrial fibrillation. He was subsequently signed off work due to this condition and work-related stress.

Written warning

The investigation was carried out by Ms Jarman, who was the deputy headteacher at the time. She initially recommended informal counselling rather than formal disciplinary action. However, Mr Kilmartin, headteacher, considered this to be too lenient and asked Ms Jarman to investigate further allegations into Mr Wright, namely lying to his line manager about the non-attendance at the Brighton Dome event and speaking rudely to a teacher. These allegations were investigated and disciplinary action recommended. Following a disciplinary hearing, Mr Wright was issued with a written warning.

Raised a grievance

In April 2016, Mr Wright found a document in his pigeonhole which was an extract from the school handbook on which his name was listed with a black cross next to it, indicating that there were concerns about his performance. Mr Wright raised a grievance, claiming that the document was a way to undermine him, due to his involvement in supporting his colleague at an ET. He also made further claims of bullying, as well as submitting a subject access request.

An external HR consultant was appointed to carry out an investigation into the claims of bullying. The investigation report into the alleged bullying did not reach any conclusions or resolve any issues. Around that time, Mr Wright also requested a referral for an autism assessment.

Proposed settlement agreement

In June 2017, Mr Wright was asked to meet with Mr Williamson, the school’s chair of governors, to discuss a settlement agreement. It was clear that Mr Kilmartin had spoken with Mr Williamson and made it clear that he could no longer work with Mr Wright.

Mr Wright refused the offer of a settlement and the meeting became heated. As Mr Wright was not prepared to accept a settlement, he was suspended, pending a disciplinary investigation into whether he could continue to work at the school due to an irretrievable breakdown in relationships between Mr Wright and the senior leadership team (SLT).

Diagnosis of autism

In November 2017, Mr Wright was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Further grievances, which he had raised, were not upheld and the disciplinary hearing was postponed. Mr Wright was invited to mediation in February 2018 and the school also arranged for an employment training consultant from the National Autistic Society (NAS) to assess Mr Wright, to look at adjustments for his return to work as head of mathematics.

In September 2018, a meeting took place with Ms Jarman to discuss the recommendations from the NAS report, to enable Mr Wright to return to work. The discussion was clearly on the premise that such adjustments would be made to the role of head of mathematics.

Offer of a different role

However, Mr Kilmartin had decided that Mr Wright could not return to his role as head of mathematics. Mr Wright was offered an alternative role as high performance coach. Mr Wright saw this as a demotion and raised a further grievance. This was not upheld and Mr Wright then wrote to say that he would return to work in this role, but that he would do so ‘under protest’. There then followed a number of letters and emails between Mr McGuckian, one of the school governors, and Mr Wright; in one of the letters, Mr McGuckian asked Mr Wright if he would be ‘continuing with [his] outstanding tribunal claim’? In a further letter, in May 2019, Mr McGuckian notified Mr Wright that his employment would be terminated.

Findings

The ET concluded that the claims of unfair dismissal, victimisation and discrimination succeeded for the following reasons:

Unfair dismissal

The school argued that the reason for the dismissal was capability or some other substantial reason. However, the ET concluded that these were not the real reasons and that the actual reason was because Mr Wright would not accept the new role unconditionally. The ET also concluded that even if that had been the ‘some other substantial reason’ relied on by the school, it would not be within the band of reasonable responses to dismiss an employee for a reason which effectively amounted to victimisation. The ET also found that the school’s contention that Mr Wright was dismissed on the grounds of capability to be without merit.

Victimisation

The ET concluded that Mr Wright’s dismissal was significantly influenced by the fact that he had stated that he wished to proceed with the ET claim, which had been presented in February 2019.

Discrimination arising from disability

The ET considered the allegations of unfavourable treatment together and held that the reasons for this treatment was Mr Wright’s persistence in raising grievances, the request of DSARs and the manner in which he raised these matters.

The ET concluded that Mr Wright’s behaviours arose out of his autism, particularly considering that the law allows a broader approach to be taken by an ET when identifying a connection between the ‘something’ and the underlying disability.

The school relied on justification as a defence, the legitimate aim being ‘an effective and capable subject lead of mathematics who has a functioning and not damaged relationship with the headteacher and senior leadership team’. However, the ET did not consider that the school acted proportionately and could find no evidence that Mr Wright was not capable of performing his job.

Summary and advice

This case highlights the importance of properly managing grievances raised by employees with disabilities, including those with neurodiversity. The National Autistic Society can provide helpful guidance to employers Employing autistic people – a guide for employers.

Need support with your HR?

CEFM support means you can focus on education, while we take care of your organisation’s HR needs.

We have a wide range of education HR consultancy services to choose from, offering complete flexibility for your school. Get in touch for a free consultation about how we can help you.

The grievance section of our CEFMi website contains model policies, information, flowchart and related model forms and letters. Get a free trial of CEFMi – a comprehensive resource for school managers containing over 7,000 pages of text, including over 170 policies written specifically for schools.