Claimant v Oasis Community Learning Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found that the claimant was not less favourably treated than comparators. All comparators were in materially different circumstances. Where there were differences in treatment (e.g. compared to Mirvat Al-Khulaqui), the tribunal found this was not because of age but because of other factors such as Mirvat's qualifications, motivation, and physics teaching ability. No less favourable treatment was established.
The claimant remained employed at the time of presenting the claim form, and therefore under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear a breach of contract claim. The claim must fail on jurisdictional grounds.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Cover Supervisor from September 2014. She was an overseas-trained teacher without UK Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). She was given teaching opportunities in English and geography from 2019-2023 and received additional pay for these duties. She sought support to achieve QTS via an assessment-only route. The school was in financial difficulty during 2020-2021 and no cover supervisors were put forward for QTS assessment until Mirvat Al-Khulaqui in early 2023. The claimant went off sick with work-related stress in April 2023, citing lack of support for QTS and being forced to teach outside her job description.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. On direct age discrimination, the tribunal found no less favourable treatment. All named comparators were in materially different circumstances (different routes to QTS, different subjects, different qualifications). Even comparing to Mirvat Al-Khulaqui, any difference in treatment was due to Mirvat's physics teaching ability and motivation, not age. The breach of contract claim was dismissed as the claimant remained employed when the claim was filed, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Practical note
A discrimination claim will fail where all comparators are in materially different circumstances, and any differences in treatment can be explained by legitimate non-discriminatory factors such as business needs, individual qualifications, and performance.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3311924/2023
- Decision date
- 29 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Cover Supervisor / Assistant Teacher
- Service
- 9 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No