YY

Case Summary

The claimant was employed as an assistant head at a school and was dismissed for gross misconduct. She claims her dismissal was an act of discrimination arising from disability, unfair, and wrongful.

The tribunal found that the claimant's claims of discrimination arising from disability, unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal were not well-founded after a full hearing on the merits.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •disability discrimination
• •unfair dismissal
• •wrongful dismissal

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Respondent: XX v YY Heard at: Reading On: 3-6, 9 & 10 October & 12 October 2023 (in chambers) Before: Employment Judge Anstis Mrs S Laurence-Doig Mr K Rose Appearances: For the Claimant: Mr B Phelps (counsel) For the Respondent: Mr J Ratledge (counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT The claimant’s claims are dismissed. REASONS A. INTRODUCTION 1. The claimant was employed by the respondent as assistant head at a school until her dismissal without notice on 9 June 2020. 2. The respondent says that the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct. The claimant alleges that her dismissal was an act of discrimination arising from disability, unfair and wrongful. B. THE HEARING 3. Although originally listed for nine days, the hearing was reduced to six and a half days by the tribunal. It is a tribute to the skills of both counsel (and the fluency of the various witnesses) that evidence was completed comfortably within five days, by mid-morning on Monday 9 October 2023. It was agreed that the hearing should then adjourn for written submissions and brief oral replies to take place on Tuesday 10 October 2023. 4. The claimant was a vulnerable party or witness for the purposes of the Presidential Guidance on Vulnerable Parties and Witnesses in Employment Tribunal Proceedings. We discussed with counsel any necessary adjustments we should make to facilitate her participation in proceedings. Mr Phelps sought regular breaks for the claimant and these were granted as a ten-minute break every hour. Breaks were later granted every forty minutes for one of the respondent’s witnesses on account of a back condition. Given the circumstances that appear below we have also had regard to the Equal Treatment Bench Book’s sections on coercive and controlling relationships. 5. We understand this decision may be considered by the Teaching Regulat…