JPP Law Blog
Teacher dismissed after long illness wins discrimination claim
A teacher who was dismissed after suffering a long illness following an attack by a pupil has won her discrimination claim.
The teacher, who was a head of department, had suffered a significant stress reaction after being assaulted by a pupil in March 2011. She tried unsuccessfully to return to work in December 2011 so the school's occupational health team sought information from her concerning her prognosis.
That information was not always forthcoming and she was dismissed in January 2013. She lodged an internal appeal, which was heard in April 2013. At the hearing, she produced a "fit for work" note and other medical evidence.
However, the panel upheld the dismissal on the basis that the medical evidence was inconsistent, the prognosis not good, her return uncertain, and the note an attempt to return before her condition had been fully treated.
The employment tribunal found that the school's aims in dismissing the teacher were legitimate, but that dismissal was disproportionate for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
It found that the school had adduced no satisfactory evidence about the adverse impact of the teacher's continuing absence, and should reasonably have waited "a little longer" to see if she would be able to return.
It concluded that the dismissal was unfair. The school appealed successfully, with the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling that the dismissal was proportionate, fair and not discriminatory.
The teacher took the case to the Court of Appeal, which has ruled in her favour. It held that there had been no error of law by the employment tribunal.
The case was borderline because of the length of the teacher's absence and the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence about her prognosis, but the essential point was that, by the time of her internal appeal, there was evidence that she was fit to return.
The tribunal had therefore been entitled to hold that it was disproportionate and unreasonable of the school to disregard that evidence without at least a further assessment by its own occupational health advisers.
To find out more about JPP's employment law services please visit employment law
JPP Law Blog

- Case Studies and Reviews (9)
- Commercial Law (108)
- Dispute Resolution (27)
- Employment Law (119)
- Intellectual Property (3)
- Start-ups (25)
- Videos (8)
- 2022 May (1)
- 2022 April (3)
- 2022 March (2)
- 2022 February (2)
- 2022 January (2)
- 2021 December (1)
- 2021 November (1)
- 2021 October (1)
- 2021 September (1)
- 2021 August (1)
- 2021 July (1)
- 2021 May (1)
- 2021 April (1)
- 2021 March (1)
- 2021 February (1)
- 2021 January (1)
- 2020 December (1)
- 2020 November (2)
- 2020 October (2)
- 2020 September (2)
- 2020 August (1)
- 2020 July (3)
- 2020 June (1)
- 2020 May (3)
- 2020 April (1)
- 2020 March (2)
- 2020 February (2)
- 2020 January (2)
- 2019 December (2)
- 2019 October (1)
- 2019 September (5)
- 2019 July (3)
- 2019 June (2)
- 2019 May (2)
- 2019 April (3)
- 2019 March (2)
- 2019 February (2)
- 2019 January (2)
- 2018 December (2)
- 2018 October (4)
- 2018 September (12)
- 2018 February (6)
- 2018 January (7)
- 2017 December (2)
- 2018 July (14)
- 2018 June (2)
- 2018 May (13)
- 2018 April (8)
- 2018 March (11)
- 2017 November (6)
- 2017 October (12)
- 2017 September (14)
- 2017 July (7)
- 2017 June (10)
- 2017 May (6)
- 2017 April (4)
- 2017 March (11)
- 2017 February (6)
- 2017 January (1)
- 2016 December (2)
- 2016 September (4)
- 2016 July (1)