Teacher awarded £42K for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
In the case of Ms J White v The Governing Body of Dorothy Stringer School and Brighton and Hove City Council the employment tribunal (ET) considered claims of allegations of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Sickness absences
Ms White had been employed as a teacher at Dorothy Stringer School. During her employment there, she experienced health issues that led to significant periods of absence. Many of the absences were related to a disability, but the last period of absence was related to concussion following an accident she had at work. At the point of dismissal, Ms White had been absent for two and a half months.
Claims
Ms White’s primary claims were:
- Unfair dismissal: she claimed that her employment termination was unjust and not in line with fair employment practices.
- Disability discrimination: she alleged that the school discriminated against her due to her disability, particularly concerning her attendance record.
- Failure to make reasonable adjustments: she argued that the school did not implement necessary adjustments to accommodate her disability, which could have allowed her to remain in employment.
Minimal disruption to students’ education
The school maintained that their actions were justified. They emphasised the importance of maintaining a fair and transparent sickness management system to ensure minimal disruption to students’ education. Their stated legitimate aim was:
‘To ensure that staff are capable of demonstrating satisfactory attendance and a good standard of attendance comprising the aims of maintaining a fair, effective and transparent sickness management regime and the efficient use of resources in order to ensure that the education for pupils is not unduly disrupted.’
ET proceedings
The hearing took place over several days in December 2024. Evidence was presented by both parties, including testimonies from Ms White and representatives from the school. The ET examined the sequence of events leading to Ms White’s dismissal, the nature of her health issues and the school’s response to her absences.
Key findings
The ET’s findings highlighted several critical points:
Disability-related absences
The ET assessed whether these absences were appropriately considered in the school’s decision-making processes.
Reasonable adjustments:
The ET considered whether the school had made sufficient efforts to accommodate Ms White’s condition. This included considering adjustments recommended by medical professionals and whether these were implemented in a timely and effective way.
Procedural fairness
The ET looked at the procedures leading to Ms White’s dismissal, assessing if they aligned with established employment practices and whether Ms White was given adequate opportunity to address concerns raised by the school.
Conclusion
The ET concluded that Ms White’s dismissal was unfair for the reasons below.
Failed to follow own policy
The school had not adequately consulted with Ms White: it had failed to follow its own policy, including failing to discuss the occupational health (OH) report with Ms White before a decision was taken to convene the stage 3 hearing. The policy required not only that the OH report be discussed before the stage 3 hearing took place, but that it be discussed before a decision was even taken to proceed to stage 3. This gave rise to the inference that the school was actively looking to bring her employment to an end as quickly as possible.
Denied opportunity to discuss
However, the failure was more than just a procedural one. By failing to meet with Ms White to discuss the OH advice before deciding whether to convene a stage 3 hearing, Ms White was denied the opportunity to discuss the adjustments being sought.
Too quick to dismiss
In addition, Ms White’s most recent absence was the result of an accident. The medical evidence at the time of the stage 3 hearing was that she would recover from that injury shortly and the ET concluded that the school could have waited longer before dismissing her.
The judgment emphasised the necessity for employers to carefully consider disability-related absences and to implement recommended adjustments to support employees effectively.
Implications for schools
This case highlights the importance for schools to:
- Understand disability rights: ensure that all staff are aware of the rights of employees with disabilities and the legal obligations of the employer.
- Implement reasonable adjustments: act promptly on recommendations from medical professionals to accommodate employees’ needs.
- Maintain fair procedures: adopt transparent and fair procedures when addressing issues related to staff attendance, especially when linked to disabilities.
By following these key areas, schools can foster an inclusive work environment and mitigate potential legal challenges.
Need support with your HR?
Our support means you can focus on education, while we take care of your organisation’s HR needs.
Our core membership service is designed to meet your school’s day-to-day human resource needs, all for a fixed fee. We can also provide access to a team of occupational health specialists to help you manage your school’s employee health, wellbeing and sickness. Get in touch for a consultation about how we can help you.
The sickness section of our CEFMi website contains model policies and related letters and forms. Get a free trial of CEFMi – a comprehensive resource for school managers containing over 7,000 pages of text. No other website offers such a complete service specifically written for schools.