Claimant v The Governing Body of Oaks Park High School

Tribunal found that the Senior Leadership Team telling lies describing the Claimant as unhelpful and difficult, and misrepresenting her role as Adaptions Officer, were acts of direct disability discrimination. The negative characterisations arose from assumptions based on how a hearing person would act and failure to account for communication barriers caused by the Claimant's deafness. However, misstatements about education policy and government guidelines were found not to be because of disability.

Tribunal found that reprimanding the Claimant's BSL interpreter on 24 September 2021 was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability (need for an interpreter). The Respondent failed to show this was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; less discriminatory approaches were available. However, complaints about not being invited to BBQ and lunch preferences were not upheld — the BBQ information was available to the Claimant, and the lunch email omission, though arising from absence due to anxiety, was found to be proportionate.

Tribunal did not find a PCP of conducting protracted grievance processes that applied generally. Even if such a PCP existed, the Tribunal found the Respondent's handling was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (ensuring Claimant was well enough to participate, availability of Governors, obtaining occupational health information, prioritising education during Covid-19). Similarly, the PCP of suspending email accounts for staff on long-term sick leave was found to be proportionate.

Tribunal upheld the claim regarding the workplace PCP: requiring the Claimant to work from school premises from 1 September 2020 to 3 February 2021 put her at substantial disadvantage (people touching her to get attention, risking Covid infection). The Respondent knew or should have known of this disadvantage. Allowing her to work from home would have been a reasonable adjustment and was not made. However, the claim regarding meetings PCP (staff talking across each other) failed because the Respondent did take reasonable steps (chair instructing staff not to talk over each other, follow-up by Ms De Grove).

Tribunal found the Claimant's grievance on 30 November 2020 was a protected act. The false description of the Claimant as unhelpful and difficult, and the misrepresentation of her role as Adaptions Officer in grievance interviews, were acts of victimisation. Ms Hamill's negative view was influenced by the Claimant's allegation of discrimination, which she described as 'outrageous.' The SLT closed ranks to defend against the discrimination complaint. However, the complaint about the 19 May 2021 letter purporting to be from Ms Carty was not upheld — it was a communication error, not victimisation.