Mrs G Graham v The Governing Body of Watville Primary School and Birmingham City Council (England and Wales : Disability Discrimination : Unfair Dismissal) -[2017] UKET 1302823/2016- (17 July 2017)

Key Facts

Issues

• In relation to the unfair dismissal claim, the respondent had to establish: (1) a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct as the reason for dismissal; (2) that this belief was held on reasonable grounds; and (3) that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses under Section 98(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal assessed whether the employer acted reasonably in treating the misconduct as sufficient grounds for dismissal.
• In relation to disability discrimination under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, the claimant alleged she was treated unfavourably due to her disability (Reynauds disease, Addison's disease, and fibromyalgia). The tribunal had to determine: (1) if the claimant was subjected to unfavourable treatment; and (2) whether this treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or if it arose directly from her disability.

Holdings

• The tribunal rejected the disability discrimination claim, concluding the dismissal and removal of certain adjustments were not unfavourable treatment arising from the claimant's disability. The disciplinary actions were based on dishonesty rather than disability-related factors, and no reasonable adjustments were withdrawn.
• The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal, finding the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's gross misconduct for deliberately misleading her Headmistress about the medical nature of her monthly absences. The disciplinary process was deemed reasonable, and the decision to summarily dismiss was within the range of appropriate responses.

Legal Principles

• The British Home Stores case established that an employer must have a genuine belief in the employee's misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and conduct a reasonable investigation before dismissal. The tribunal found the employer met these requirements in this case.
• Under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, a claim of disability discrimination requires the claimant to prove unfavourable treatment arising from their disability and that the treatment is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The tribunal found the dismissal was based on misconduct, not disability-related treatment.
• Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires the tribunal to determine if the employer acted reasonably in treating the stated reason as sufficient for dismissal, considering the size and resources of the employer's undertaking. This aligns with the principle of reasonableness in disciplinary decisions.
• Under Section 98(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the employer must demonstrate the reason for dismissal and that it falls within subsection 2 or another substantial reason. The employer must show a genuine belief in the employee's misconduct and reasonable grounds for that belief, as established in British Home Stores Limited v Burchell [1980] ICR 303.

Precedent Name

Cited Statute

• Employment Rights Act 1996
• Equality Act 2010

Judge Name

Passage Text

• We conclude, having read Mr Foster's report and the other relevant documents, that the respondents must have had a genuine belief that the claimant had deliberately misled the Headmistress. This was followed by a reasonable investigation. ... The decision to dismiss, based as it was on the conclusion that the claimant's conduct had seriously breached the trust and confidence the 1st respondent could have in her, was clearly within the range of responses of a reasonable employer.
• We find that the claimant's dismissal was for gross misconduct and was not for any reason connected with her disability.
• The disciplinary committee considered all of the evidence before it and, after some deliberation, decided that the claimant had deliberately misled Mrs Roach as to the nature of her treatments requiring absence and that this had seriously damaged the trust and confidence the 1st respondent could have in her. The claimant was accordingly, summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.