Claimant v Mid Kent College

In December 2021 Ms Woodman tapped her head to indicate Dr Turton had 'mental problems', creating a hostile environment by mocking her disability in front of students. The tribunal found this was unwanted conduct related to disability with the purpose and effect of violating Dr Turton's dignity.

Ms Woodman spread fabricated information that Dr Turton had made racist remarks about a student being a gypsy, which led to a formal complaint. The tribunal found this was unwanted conduct related to Dr Turton's disability (as it arose from Ms Woodman's negative campaign against her connected to her disability) that created a hostile and humiliating environment.

On 21 April 2022 at around 4.45pm Ms Woodman and Ms Peet shouted at Dr Turton when she returned her chair to the staffroom and tried to force her to communicate with them. The tribunal found this was unwanted conduct related to disability that had the purpose and effect of creating a hostile, degrading and humiliating environment.

Other alleged acts of harassment either did not occur as alleged on the facts, or did not meet the threshold of seriousness required for harassment, or were not shown to be related to disability.

The respondent subjected Dr Turton to a redundancy procedure. The tribunal found she was treated less favourably than the comparator (Ms Bateman, another specialist lecturer whose post was ring-fenced). Adverse inferences were drawn from the failure to call decision-makers as witnesses, lack of documentary evidence, and evidence suggesting the decision-makers viewed Dr Turton as difficult. The burden shifted and the respondent failed to provide an explanation.

Dr Turton was dismissed by way of voluntary redundancy. The tribunal found this was a dismissal (not mutual termination) caused by the respondent's failures: not implementing mediation/training, mishandling interactions with colleagues, and the discriminatory decision to put her at risk of redundancy. The discrimination claim succeeded for the same reasons as the redundancy selection claim.

Other alleged acts of direct discrimination either did not occur as alleged on the facts, or the claimant failed to prove less favourable treatment compared to an actual or hypothetical comparator, or the complaint was re-characterised as harassment.

The respondent applied a PCP of requiring all staff to meet and interact with each other. This put Dr Turton (with autism, ADHD and PTSD) at a substantial disadvantage as she found social interactions difficult and distressing. The respondent knew of this. The tribunal found it was reasonable to allow Dr Turton to work separately from Ms Woodman and Ms Peet and to arrange alternative communication methods (email, text) as temporary adjustments during the investigation and until mediation/training were implemented. The respondent failed to take these steps on multiple occasions between April and June 2022.

The claim that subjecting Dr Turton to a social media investigation was discrimination arising from disability failed because the tribunal found the investigation was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (duty of care to students, protecting reputation, preventing inappropriate social media use). The claim about failing to make the social media policy clear failed because the unfavourable treatment was not shown to be caused by the consequences of disability — the failure to explain the policy led to the consequences rather than being caused by them.