Governing Body of Windsor Clive Primary School & Anor v Stephanie Forsbrook & Anor
[2024] EAT 183
C Baldwin v Cleves School & Ors
3 May 2024
[2024] EAT 66
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A teacher sued her school and two bosses for discrimination. The judge let the bosses off, but the appeals court said the law is clear: if a boss's actions are discriminatory, the workers who did it are also responsible, even if they didn't mean to be discriminatory. The appeals court also looked at other claims, but decided the bosses weren't responsible for those.
Key Facts
- •Miss C. Baldwin (Claimant) brought claims for disability discrimination, victimisation, and harassment against Cleves School (School) and two individual employees (Respondents) under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA).
- •The ET found the School liable for two acts of disability discrimination committed by the Respondents.
- •The ET dismissed the claims against the individual Respondents under s.110 EqA, stating their actions were misguided attempts to address a complex situation.
- •The Claimant appealed on three grounds.
Legal Principles
Conditions for individual employee liability under s.110 EqA: (a) employee or agent status, (b) discriminatory act during employment, (c) act constitutes EqA contravention by employer, and (d) no exceptions in s.110 apply.
Equality Act 2010, s.110
Section 110 EqA confers no discretion on the ET to avoid finding a contravention if the conditions for individual liability are met.
Interpretation of s.110 EqA considering its history, context, and purpose
Victimisation under s.27 EqA requires a protected act and subsequent detriment.
Equality Act 2010, s.27
Harassment under s.26 EqA requires unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic with the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment. Both subjective (claimant's perception) and objective (reasonableness) tests apply.
Equality Act 2010, s.26
Employer liability under s.109 EqA for acts of employees in the course of employment, with a potential defence if reasonable steps were taken to prevent the act.
Equality Act 2010, s.109
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The ET erred by failing to apply s.110 correctly and find the individual Respondents liable for discrimination. The EAT substituted findings of contravention of s.110 against the individual Respondents.
Appeal dismissed regarding victimisation.
The ET's omission to address a specific protected act was remedied by subsequent explanations which showed the ET had considered the issue but found against the Claimant.
Appeal dismissed regarding harassment.
The email was not sufficiently alleged as harassment, and the ET's decision did not meet the threshold for a perversity challenge.