Autistic teacher awarded £850K after being dismissed for making serial complaints

A School will pay £850K to a teacher with autism, who raised multiple complaints and grievances, following a Tribunal decision that he had been unfairly dismissed, victimised and discriminated against due to his tenacious pursuit of the complaints, which was an obsessional behaviour related to his autism.

Facts

Mr Wright was employed by the School as Head of Maths from 2005. In 2014, he had supported a colleague in a successful victimisation claim against the School. Later that year, he was the subject of a misconduct investigation, as he did not attend an external event and had left School early. He claimed this was due to illness due to a heart condition. However, he received a written warning for lying to his manager about attendance at the event.

In 2016, he found a document in his pigeonhole, which was an extract from the School handbook, with his name listed with a black cross. He claimed to have been targeted for supporting his colleague, that the headteacher had attempted to undermine him and that no stress risk assessment had been undertaken regarding his heart condition, despite this being recommended by occupational health. He raised a grievance, but both this, and his later appeal  were dismissed.

In 2017, the Vice Chair of Governors asked for an investigation to be carried out into Mr Wright’s claims of bullying by the Headteacher. Additionally, Mr Wright submitted a subject access request to gain evidence of any view taken by the Headteacher about him in relation to his support of his former colleague. He also requested a referral for an autism assessment, as he suspected he may be autistic.

In June 2017, his Union rep contacted him to say the School had asked if he wished to consider terminating his employment in return for a financial settlement. The Vice Chair then met with him to make this offer, and became angry when Mr Wright said he did not want it and wanted to keep his job. Mr Wright filed a Tribunal claim alleging victimisation.

Mr Wright was then suspended and a disciplinary investigation commenced to determine if he could continue in work due to irretrievable breakdown in his relationships with senior management. Mr Wright tried to resolve matters by withdrawing his subject access request and said he would drop his bullying complaints against the headteacher.

Nevertheless, the investigation continued and Mr Wright raised a second grievance. He said the School had not considered his health problems and was in breach of its duty of care towards him – particularly in relation to their conduct at the suspension meeting

In November 2017, he was diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder. The disciplinary investigation recommended mediation rather than disciplinary action, but the School rejected his second grievance. The School looked at what adjustments could be made to his role, given his autism, but then suggested Mr Wright return to work in a completely different role (which was seen as a demotion) as a reasonable adjustment. Mr Wright raised a third grievance and appealed the second grievance. The School said he had to accept the offer of the different job or be dismissed. He said he would accept it “under protest”. The School was not satisfied with this and terminated his employment on notice.

Mr Wright submitted a claim to the Tribunal alleging unfair dismissal, victimisation, disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Tribunal decision

The Tribunal found he had been unfairly dismissed for refusing to work in the new role, and because he would not withdraw his Tribunal claim. Given the dismissal was significantly influenced by Mr Wright’s continuation with his Tribunal claim (a protected act under the Equality Act), the less favourable treatment he received amounted to victimisation.

In relation to his disability discrimination claim, the Tribunal had to decide if his repeated grievances, subject access request, tribunal claim and the manner in which he went about these, resulted in his dismissal and whether they arose in consequence of his autism and/or other disabilities. Mr Wright submitted that he pursued his complaints so tenaciously as a result of the effect of autism on his behaviour. In particular, it led to rigidity of thought, obsessional traits (including the tendency to fixate on matters), difficulty with social interactions and anxiety. The Tribunal concluded that the behaviours that ultimately led to his dismissal arose out of his autism. While this type of discrimination is capable of being justified, here it was not, as while the School needed a maths teacher, who could function and did not have a damaged relationship with the headteacher, the way the School tried to achieve this was not proportionate. A more proportionate response may have been to have managed Mr Wright’s performance through a formal process to assess if the relationship could be improved. It  could not have irretrievably broken down, as otherwise the School would not have offered an alternative job. As a result, his claim of discrimination arising from his disability was upheld, though the reasonable adjustments claim failed.

By consent at the remedies hearing, the School agreed to pay £850K in damaged made up of :

• £750K for injury to feelings and loss of earnings
• £75K for personal injury compensation
• £25K legal costs
• £9187.50 as a basic award for unfair dismissal.

Comment

While only a Tribunal decision, this case shows the need to be wary of any behaviours that could arise out of a disability, despite the frustration of having to deal with a seemingly vexatious and time-consuming employee, and the resultant damage to trust and confidence.

When dealing with neurodiverse employees (or indeed any employee with a disability), it’s important to understand behaviours that may arise from this. This may come from an occupational health report, but also the National Autistic Society do provide resources on this and on the sorts of adjustments that may be reasonable.

Here the School engaged in quite threatening behaviour. It made a financial offer to terminate employment early on, and this was admitted into evidence. While, provided the right conditions are fulfilled, it is possible to do this under the provisions of protected conversations, these will not protect you when there are allegations of discrimination (only when there are allegations of unfair dismissal). Additionally, the School effectively told Mr Wright to take a demotion or be dismissed without any real formal process being involved.

As with any case, but particularly with a difficult case such as this, we can help you to manage the process followed to ensure any legal risks are minimised. This case highlights the extreme financial consequences that can result if a situation is not managed well – particularly where frustration at an employee’s behaviour has ultimately been allowed to control the employer’s actions.