The court was asked as to who was the appropriate respondent when a claim for disability discrimination is brought by a teacher employed at a maintained community school with a delegated budget. The teacher’s contract of employment is with the local education authority, but the Governing Body of such a school is given extensive employment powers by the legislation, and in certain respects employment by the LEA is to be treated as if it were employment by the Governing Body.
Keene LJ (with whom Neuberger LJ agreed) commented on the effect of the relevant legislation, stating that: ‘One needs to bear in mind that the governing body of a school with a delegated budget is patently given the power by Schedule 16 to the 1998 Act to appoint, suspend and dismiss a teacher, and that the LEA has no power to prevent suspension or dismissal of a teacher from employment at the school in question. In those circumstances it would be an absurdity if the governing body were not to be held to have the power to grant [maternity] leave to a teacher at its school, whether on compassionate grounds or for any other proper purpose, and to decide whether or not such leave should be paid or unpaid. Its financial powers granted by section 50(3) of the 1998 Act confirm that: see para 10 above. I am satisfied therefore that, for all these reasons, the governing body of such a school has that power and only the governing body of such a school has that power.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Neuberger Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Neuberger
Citations:
[2005] IRLR 382, [2005] EWCA Civ 122, Times 06-Apr-2005, [2005] ICR 721
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5(1) 5(2), School Standards and Framework Act 1998
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Shahina Murphy v Slough Borough Council Governing Body of Langley Wood School EAT 26-May-2004
EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments . .
Cited – Green v The Governing Body Victoria Road Primary School Kent County Council EAT 24-Feb-2003
EAT Jurisdiction – appeal from an Employment Tribunal held at Ashford, Kent, who, following a Preliminary Hearing on 27 February 2002, unanimously decided that the named second Respondents, Kent County Council, . .
Cited by:
Cited – Davies v London Borough of Haringey QBD 17-Oct-2014
The claimant had been employed as a teaching assistant. She came to work with the union, eventually being released from her work full time to undertake the role within the union. The defendant suspended the claimant from her role for alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Education
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223103
