Karen Plumbley-JonesBaldwin v Cleves School and others [2024] EAT 66
This case concerned individual respondents’ liability for discrimination under section 110 of the Equality Act 2010. Miss Baldwin, a newly qualified teacher, resigned due to incidents involving a colleague, Ms Miller, and the head teacher, Mr Hodges. She claimed disability discrimination against the school, Ms Miller and Mr Hodges. The employment tribunal (ET) upheld two disability discrimination claims against the school but dismissed the claims against the individual respondents, stating that their actions were misguided but were aimed at addressing a complex situation. Ms Baldwin appealed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the ET erred in deciding that Ms Miller and Mr Hodges were not liable under section 110. The EAT held that if the conditions for individual liability are met, the ET has no discretion to find there is no liability. The EAT substituted a decision that Ms Miller and Mr Hodges were personally liable. The case will now go back to the ET to decide compensation.
This case highlights the broad reach of section 110 and the lack of discretion for ETs when the conditions for individual liability are satisfied. It’s unusual for claimants to name individuals as respondents unless they’re concerned that their employer may become insolvent or they want the people responsible for the discrimination to be held accountable. Nevertheless, employees should be made aware that they can be named as individual respondents in a discrimination claim and may have to pay compensation if the claim succeeds.
Kaler v Insights ESC Ltd [2024] EAT 195
Ms Kaler was employed as Assistant Vice Principal by Insights ESC Ltd. She told the Principal that she was going through the process of being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and referred to herself as “aspie”. She was dismissed without notice for sending a substantial number of abusive, threatening and harassing emails to colleagues. She brought ET claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. During the hearing she requested a postponement twice, which was denied both times. After the hearing but before the decision, Ms Kaler produced a note by her GP regarding her health. The ET dismissed her claims and she appealed in relation to her discrimination claim and the ET’s decision not to grant a postponement.
The EAT upheld the ET’s decision to dismiss Ms Kaler’s claim of discrimination arising from her disability. The school had constructive knowledge of her disability but the conduct for which she was dismissed wasn’t something arising in consequence of her disability. Even if it was, her conduct was so serious that the decision to dismiss her was justified. The EAT decided that the ET was justified in refusing to postpone the hearing. Its decision wasn’t perverse and it was proper to take into account the length of time since dismissal (almost four years) and the fact the school would be prejudiced if there was a further delay.
This is a helpful decision for employers, as it’s a reminder that the existence of a disability such as autism doesn’t mean that they can’t take disciplinary action and potentially dismiss an employee if the misconduct is very serious. However, the facts in this case were extreme so employers should tread carefully if they’re dealing with a similar situation and should take legal advice. The case also shows some of the factors that an ET has to take into account when deciding an application to postpone a hearing on medical grounds.
Ford v The Scottish Ministers [2024] EAT 197
The issue in this case was whether moving an employee to a different team and carrying out a disciplinary investigation after he’d made protected disclosures amounted to detriments on the grounds of protected disclosures, giving rise to a whistleblowing claim.
The ET held that the employee had made protected disclosures but he wasn’t seconded or investigated because he’d made those disclosures: there were other reasons. His appeal to the EAT succeeded for three reasons: the ET had failed to explain properly why the secondment wasn’t a detriment; the decision to move him was influenced by his disclosure in a way that was more than trivial; and he was unhappy about the secondment and felt it was a detriment. The EAT sent the case back to the ET for it to reconsider whether putting the employee on secondment to a different team and opening the disciplinary investigation amounted to detriments on the grounds of his protected disclosures.
This case is a reminder that it can be difficult to differentiate between taking action against an employee for whistleblowing, and taking action against them for their conduct while they’re whistleblowing. In a detriment claim, the employee only has to show that the protected disclosure influenced the employer’s decision to impose the detriment in a way that was more than trivial. If an employer wants to discipline an employee after they’ve made a disclosure, they need to be very careful.
