C Baldwin v Cleves School & Ors
[2024] EAT 66
Governing Body of Windsor Clive Primary School & Anor v Stephanie Forsbrook & Anor
16 October 2024
[2024] EAT 183
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A teacher with asthma was wrongly told to attend a meeting because of a computer mistake. She won a harassment case, but the judge said the original decision didn't explain well enough why the mistake was linked to her asthma and why the actions were harassing. So, the case will be looked at again.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Mrs Forsbrook) brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct and indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and harassment.
- •All claims except harassment were dismissed.
- •Harassment claim related to the claimant being wrongly required to attend a second stage absence meeting due to an administrative error.
- •The error was corrected by the respondents promptly upon its discovery.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) found in favour of the claimant on the harassment claim.
- •The Appellants (Governing Body of Windsor Clive Primary School and Mr Fisher) appealed the ET's decision.
Legal Principles
In harassment claims under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, the 'unwanted conduct' must be 'related to' the protected characteristic (disability in this case), but this does not require a strict causation test. There must be a connection, however broad.
Equality Act 2010, Section 26; London Borough of Haringey v Mrs C A O’Brien, UKEAT/0004/16/LA; Hartley v Foreign and Commonwealth Office Services UKEAT/0033/15
When determining whether conduct has the effect of creating an intimidating environment (under Section 26(1)(b)), the perception of the claimant, other circumstances, and reasonableness of that effect must be considered.
Equality Act 2010, Section 26(4)
If an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) identifies a legal error, it must remit the case to the ET unless the error was immaterial or the EAT can determine the correct outcome based on existing facts.
Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] EWCA Civ 449
Unwanted conduct, in the context of harassment, is usually approached from the subjective view of the individual. Reasonableness of the 'effect' is key unless the purpose of the conduct was to violate dignity or create a prohibited environment.
Judgement of His Honour Judge Beard
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The ET failed to adequately explain the relationship between the unwanted conduct (the letters and emails) and the claimant's disability. The ET also didn't sufficiently explain why the specific actions constituted 'unwanted conduct' separate from the absence process itself.
Case remitted to the ET.
The EAT found insufficient reasoning in the ET's judgment regarding the connection between the conduct and the disability, and regarding the identification of unwanted conduct separate from the standard absence process. The ET must reconsider these issues without hearing further evidence.