Claimant v Beacon Multi-Academy Trust Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair. The respondent failed to conduct an exploratory interview, misinterpreted its own sickness absence policy, escalated prematurely to formal stages without proper consideration of the claimant's disability, and took the decision to dismiss before the stage 3 hearing, which was merely performative. No reasonable employer would have acted in this way.

The claimant's sickness absence arose from her thyroid cancer and hypocalcaemia. The respondent subjected her to unfavourable treatment (triggering formal stages, issuing a warning, skipping stage 2, dismissing her) because of that absence. The respondent failed to justify this as proportionate; there was no pressing operational need demonstrated and less discriminatory means were available, such as waiting until end of March 2022 as the OH report predicted.

The PCP requiring regular and effective attendance placed the claimant at substantial disadvantage. The respondent failed to take reasonable steps including: discounting disability-related absence, extending trigger timescales, conducting exploratory interviews, avoiding sanctions that increased stress, reviewing the situation when she was well enough, and allowing a phased return to work. These were all reasonable adjustments that were not made.

The requirement to maintain regular and effective attendance was a neutral PCP that placed disabled persons, including the claimant, at a particular disadvantage as they are more likely to be absent due to disability-related health issues. Applying this rigidly without considering individual circumstances was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aims.

While the conduct (issuing a formal warning at the first meeting and escalating to stage 3) was unwanted and related to her disability, it did not meet the threshold of violating her dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The claimant was not at work at the time and her understandable feelings of upset did not reach the necessary threshold for harassment.