Claimant v Christ's College Finchley
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant withdrew this complaint at the start of the hearing.
Claimant withdrew this complaint at the start of the hearing.
Claimant withdrew this complaint at the start of the hearing.
Claimant withdrew this complaint at the start of the hearing.
The majority found that the 'somethings arising' (inability to attend work, need to shield, need to work from home) did not arise in consequence of the claimant's obstructive sleep apnoea. The majority also found the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability. Mr Sagar (dissenting) found the somethings did arise from disability but that dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The majority found the respondent lacked actual or constructive knowledge that the claimant was disabled and that the PCP (requirement to work rather than be off work) did not put the claimant at substantial disadvantage. The alleged PCP (requirement to be at workplace rather than working from home) was not made out. Mr Sagar (dissenting) found all elements made out and adjustments should have been made.
The majority found the claimant did not do any protected acts. Mr Sagar (dissenting) found one limited protected act (handing over NHS shielding letter) but that none of the detriments were because of that protected act. Unanimous finding that victimisation claim failed.
Claimant withdrew the detriment claim under section 44(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 at the start of the hearing.
Facts
The claimant, a Senior IT Technician with obstructive sleep apnoea, was engaged by the respondent school as an agency worker from December 2019 and became an employee in September 2020 on a six-month probationary period. During the Covid-19 pandemic the claimant informed the school he had sleep apnoea and was clinically vulnerable in May 2020, but the tribunal found (majority view) he deliberately did not disclose he was clinically extremely vulnerable or request to work from home or shield. He was dismissed on 25 February 2021 during a period of Covid-related absence, primarily because of his inability to attend work and concerns about his performance including a data breach.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The majority found the respondent lacked knowledge of the claimant's disability and that the alleged 'somethings arising' did not arise from his obstructive sleep apnoea. The tribunal found the claimant was not credible, had not made requests for adjustments he claimed to have made, and had not done any protected acts. Mr Sagar dissented on disability knowledge and reasonable adjustments but all agreed the victimisation claim failed. The dismissal was found not to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (minority and majority agreement on this point).
Practical note
Even where an employee is disabled, discrimination arising and reasonable adjustments claims will fail if the employer lacks actual or constructive knowledge of the disability, and a tribunal may find an employee deliberately withheld information about their disability where they ticked 'not clinically extremely vulnerable' on a survey despite being in that category.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3310748/2021
- Decision date
- 12 January 2026
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior IT Technician
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister