Mr Martin James Scott v Kenton Schools Acadmey Trust
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0031/19/DA |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination,Unfair Dismissal,Not landmark |
| Date | 30 September 2019 |
| Published date | 06 February 2020 |
Copyright 2020
Appeal No. UKEAT/0031/19/DA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON, EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On 30 September 2019
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
(SITTING ALONE)
MR MARTIN JAMES SCOTT APPELLANT
KENTON SCHOOLS ACADEMY TRUST RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0031/19/DA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR MARTIN JAMES SCOTT
(The Appellant in Person)
For the Respondent MR PAUL SANGHA
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
DAS Law
North Quay
Temple Back
Bristol
BS1 6FL
UKEAT/0031/19/DA
-1-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The Claimant was employed by the Responde nt as a teacher. He was dismissed for the given
reason of c onduct. This concerned, principally, his admitted conduct in carrying out a request,
made by a colleague, to give pupils taking an assessment exam, manuscript notes that she had
prepared for them to follow.
The Tribunal f ound that the Claimant had, at the relevant time, a mental health disability. It
was his case that this had impaired his j udgment and decision-making. He claimed
discrimination arising from disability and failure to comply with the duty of reasonable
adjustment. He also claimed that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for making
protected disclosures about the extent of the malpract ice, and, in any event, ordinarily unfairly
dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was disabled at the relevant time. However, it did not
find that his conduct arose in consequence of his disability. In any event it considered t hat
dismissal was a proportionate response, and it was not a failure of reasonable adjustment for the
Respondent not to have imposed a lesser sanction. The unfair dismissal claims a lso failed. The
Claimant appealed the dismissal of his Equality Act 2010 claims, and the decision on the
ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
Held: The Tribunal had erred (1) in taking the wrong legal approach to whether the conduct for
which the Claimant was dismissed arose in consequence of his disability; (2) in not applying
the correct legal approach to the consideration, w hen applying the proportionality te st, of the
possibility of imposing a lesser sanction; (3) in relation to whether it would have been a
To continue reading
Request your trial