Cases2302681/2024

Claimant v St. Paul's School

9 December 2025Before Employment Judge HarleyLondon Southin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

The tribunal found that at the relevant times the claimant was not a disabled person for the purposes of section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010. Without meeting the threshold requirement of being a disabled person, the claim for direct disability discrimination could not succeed and consequently fell away.

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The tribunal dismissed the claim for direct disability discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 because the claimant did not meet the statutory definition of a disabled person. Without establishing disability status, discrimination on grounds of disability cannot be made out.

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for reason of her conduct and that this dismissal was fair. The respondent evidently satisfied the tribunal that it had a genuine belief in misconduct, conducted a reasonable investigation, and followed a fair procedure, making the dismissal fall within the band of reasonable responses.

Facts

Ms Jun Zhang, a former employee of St. Paul's School, was dismissed for conduct reasons. She brought claims for direct disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The case proceeded to a four-day full merits hearing with the claimant representing herself and the school represented by counsel.

Decision

The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, causing her disability discrimination claim to fail. The tribunal also found that her dismissal for conduct was fair, with the respondent having followed proper procedures. All claims were dismissed.

Practical note

A claimant must first establish they meet the statutory definition of disability under section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010 before any disability discrimination claim can succeed, regardless of the merits of the underlying treatment complained of.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.6(1)Equality Act 2010 s.13

Case details

Case number
2302681/2024
Decision date
9 December 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No