The Claimant was a Welsh language teacher at Barry Comprehensive School. At all material times she was disabled by reason of dyslexia and a hearing impairment.
In 2013 she was placed on an informal capability procedure because of concerns about her lesson planning, classroom management and book-marking. In 2014 she was put onto the formal capability procedure. At the stage 3 review meeting in September 2015, the Claimant’s trade union representative raised the issue of the possible relationship between poor performance and disability and reports were obtained from Occupational Health, Dyslexia Action and an optometrist, which made various recommendations. The Occupational Health report expressly stated that her conditions were ‘ . . causing an adverse effect on her ability to fulfil her role . . ‘ At the resumed stage 3 review meeting in November 2015 the reports were discussed but the head teacher decided to refer the case to the school’s governing body with a recommendation to dismiss. The panel decided to dismiss the Claimant at a meeting on 29 February 2016 in the absence of the Claimant and an internal appeal was later rejected.
The ET found that the Claimant had been dismissed because it had been found that her teaching was not of the required standard and that the capability procedure had been carried out fairly and her claim for unfair dismissal was therefore rejected.
She also brought a claim for disability discrimination based on failure to make reasonable adjustments. That claim was rejected on the basis that there was ‘no satisfactory evidence that the PCPs [the capability procedure in its entirety and the requirement to achieve a good standard of teaching] placed the claimant at any disadvantage by reason of [her disabilities]’ and that it was in any event not reasonably necessary to make any adjustments.
The EAT allowed her appeal in relation to the ‘reasonable adjustments’ claim because the ET had failed to provide in its reasons any objective assessment of the effect of the Claimant’s disabilities on her work as a teacher or performance in the capability procedure during the relevant period, which ran from 2013; that failure also meant that the conclusion that it was not reasonably necessary to make any of the suggested adjustments could not be supported, and (further) there was no express assessment of the likely effect, cost, practicality etc of such adjustments.
The error in relation to the reasonable adjustments claim might itself have impacted on the unfair dismissal claim so the appeal was also allowed in relation to the rejection of the unfair dismissal claim to that extent. A free-standing ground of appeal that the ET had failed to properly consider whether the timing of the dismissal rendered it unfair was rejected.
The EAT remitted the ‘reasonable adjustments’ and unfair dismissal claims to a fresh ET.
[2021] UKEAT 0065 – 20 – 1705
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.663127 br>