Tribunal awarded a maths teacher £850,000 for unfair dismissal. The teacher had been diagnosed with autism, anxiety and atrial fibrillation. The award was made after his grievances were n0t addressed properly. In addition, the tribunal also found he was bullied to leave. Further the school took employment advice but failed to follow that advice!
Grounds For The Unfair Dismissal
The Claimant was employed in 2005 as the head of maths at Cardinal Newman Catholic School. In 2017 he was diagnosed with autism and anxiety. The school acknowledged and accepted that the Claimant was deemed disabled under the Equality Act.
In December 2014 the Claimant received a letter informing him an investigation into his misconduct was being carried out. The misconduct related to him failing to attend a school’s event and leaving the school without permission. Incidentally, the Claimant had explained that both absences were due to him experiencing symptoms of atrial fibrillation. This was confirmed by a doctor. Subsequently he was signed off work.
Occupational Health
The Claimant attended an Occupational Health appointment on 12th January 2015. The report referred to a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, the symptoms of which were exacerbated by stress or being anxious. The occupational health report made several recommendations. These included early resolution of the disciplinary investigation and a review of the Claimant’s workload and support from management.
Failure to Follow Advice
The deputy headteacher after taking advice found the accusations against him not “nearly serious enough” for dismissal. Despite this finding, the Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing in February 2015. At the March 2015 disciplinary hearing, the Claimant received a written warning. The warning was given for being disrespectful and lying to his line manager.
On 26th April 2015, the Claimant received a three page extract of the school handbook with his name crossed out in his pigeon hole . His line manager was unable to explain the document to him. However the line manager did confirm he wrote the comments. The Claimant interpreted this as proof that he was being targeted.
In June 2016, the Claimant filed a grievance. This cited the three page document as a
deliberate and sustained attempt to undermine me… which has had a detrimental impact on my health.”
The grievance was not upheld. Following this, the Claimant then filed an appeal.
In February 2017 an external HR consultant was appointed to investigate the Claimant’s claims of bullying from the Director of Finance and HR. Around this time the Claimant also progressed an assessment to determine whether he was autistic.
The Claimant had previously helped another colleague to raise a grievance. The Claimant believed this could the reason for the bullying, he felt. In April 2017, the Claimant filed a data access request. His reason for doing this was to ascertain if the bullying was linked to his assistance with the colleague’s grievance.
Refused a Settlement Proposal
The Claimant was contacted on 14th June 2017 with an offer from the school if he agreed to terminate his employment in return for a cash settlement. The Claimant declined the offer and and stated he still wanted to work at the school. On 20th June 2017, the Claimant then met with the chair of governors, who again offered a cash settlement. This meeting became heated as the Claimant refused to accept the offer. At the end of the meeting the Claimant was suspended.
A disciplinary investigation was launched. The investigation was to investigate whether the Claimant could still work at the school. In particular whether there had been an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship between the Claimant and the leadership team. The tribunal determined by this point the headteacher had expressed clearly he
“could not work with the Claimant anymore”
and did not want him employed at the school”
By June 20218 the Claimant raised a further grievance. As a result the school arranged for an employment training consultant from the National Autistic Society to make recommendations. The consultant made a number of recommendations and met with the senior leadership team of the school. Consequently, in November 2018, the Claimant was offered a new position as a high performance coach. The Claimant rejected the offer of this post viewing it as a demotion. It is worth noting the tribunal agreed with the Claimant’s view in this regard.
Grievance
Consequently, in January 2019, the Claimant raised a third grievance . He cited in the grievance that he was being forced out of his role as head of maths and it was a demotion. On 30th April 2019, the grievance decision was notified to the Claimant. In summary, the Claimant should accept the high performance coach role. Straightaway, on 30th May 2019, the Claimant appealed but ‘worked under protest’ as a high performance coach.
The next day the Claimant received a letter informing him of his dismissal. The reason cited for dismissal was capability and the breakdown of the working relationships.
Advice for Employees
The tribunal had no difficulty
“reaching the conclusion that the real reason the Claimant was dismissed was because he would not accept the high performance coach role unconditionally”.
The judge also found that the
“there was simply no evidence that the Claimant could not perform his job medically or otherwise.”
Clearly this case is exceptional. However, sometimes employers can be unaware of the adjustments available to accomodate a disability or their legal obligations. Employees should evaluate their preferences and not assume that the employer’s offer must be accepted. For employment advice for employees click here.
Advice to Employers
This case highlights the importance of managing the complaints of employees with protected characteristics. Further employers should not assume that an employee will accept a settlement proposal.
Managers must consider neurodiversity on a case-by-case basis and strive to understand the needs of those working for them. Although the school obtained advice, the employer ignored the advice. Resulting in a dismissal which was deemed unjustified. For employment services advising employers click here.
