Claimant v Kingsdale Foundation School

The tribunal found that the respondent's failure to provide a laptop during lockdown in January 2021 was a fundamental breach of contract. However, the claimant continued working for almost 2 years after this breach, including signing a permanent contract in July 2021. The tribunal concluded the claimant's resignation was not caused by this breach and she had treated the contract as alive after the breach.

The tribunal found the claimant established prima facie cases on several allegations (payslips showing 'Miss', not allocating GCSE/sixth form classes, extending probation, negative feedback, no pay progression, Mr Turner's appointment, July 2022 meeting cancellation), but in each case the respondent provided credible non-discriminatory explanations which the tribunal accepted. For example, class allocations were due to complaints received about the claimant's performance, not her age.

The tribunal applied the same reasoning as for age discrimination. Where the claimant established prima facie cases (class allocations, probation extension, negative feedback, pay progression, Mr Turner's appointment), the respondent provided credible non-discriminatory explanations. The tribunal accepted these were based on performance concerns, policy requirements, or legitimate operational reasons, not the claimant's sex.

The sole allegation was payslips addressed to 'Miss' instead of 'Mrs'. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that labels were placed over envelope windows to conceal addresses for privacy, and this was an administrative error. The tribunal also rejected the premise that 'Miss' was inherently less favourable than 'Mrs'.

The tribunal found that while negative feedback was unwanted, it was given because it reflected the observers' genuine assessment, consistent with other performance reports. The feedback had both positive and negative elements supporting objectivity. The tribunal found it was not reasonable for the feedback to have the effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment, given it was standard practice to assess newly qualified teachers and feedback must be objective.

The tribunal found Mr Casco did not call the claimant 'Pretty Woman', preferring Ms Harrison's evidence. Regarding Mr Casco's use of 'motherfucker', while inappropriate, the tribunal found it was a spontaneous reaction to being reminded of a meeting, not directed at the claimant, and would not reasonably have the effect of violating her dignity. The reasoning for negative feedback was the same as for age harassment.

The tribunal found that apart from the laptop issue during lockdown (January 2021), the matters alleged either did not occur or did not breach express or implied terms of the employment contract. The laptop breach, while fundamental, was not pursued as it occurred almost 2 years before resignation and the claimant continued working and signed a permanent contract afterwards.

The claimant alleged the respondent failed to automatically move her up the MPS pay scale and failed to give her a 5% pay increase September-December 2022. The tribunal accepted evidence that automatic progression on the MPS scale had ended and been replaced with performance-related pay. The 5% increase was only for teachers on the KFS pay scale, which the claimant had elected not to join. There was no contractual entitlement to either payment, so no unlawful deduction.