Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of Grosset v City of York Council ET/1801465/14 the Employment Tribunal held that the dismissal of a school teacher who suffers from cystic fibrosis for a serious error of judgment (showing an 18-rated film to a class of 15/16-year-olds) was discriminatory.

Mr Grosset was employed as head of the English department at Joseph Rowntree School (“the School”) . He suffers from cystic fibrosis, which did not normally affect his ability to undertake his role. However, Mr Grosset was required to undertake a strict regime of physical exercise each day in order to remedy his condition, and had to keep stress as low as possible (as an increase in stress would potentially cause his condition to deteriorate).

From the start of his employment at the School the then-head teacher, Mrs Wright, implemented adjustments to his duties in order to minimise the stress caused to him by his position – this included giving him sufficient notice of meetings and consulting with him over any major changes. In September 2013 a new head teacher, Mr Crane, commenced employment at the School. Mr Crane was not informed of the fact that Mr Grosset suffered from cystic fibrosis and was not informed of the measures that had previously been put in place for Mr Grosset.

Mr Crane put in place new systems for all departments, with the aim of improving outcomes for pupils, and increased the workload for the heads of departments. All of the departments were also subjected to extra scrutiny, with ‘Focus Fortnights’ introduced to enable the outcomes of each department to be scrutinised on a fortnightly basis. The new systems and extra scrutiny caused a substantial amount of extra work for the heads of departments.

Mr Grosset started to feel under strain as a result of the extra workload. On 24 September 2013 he wrote a letter to his union representative setting out a number of complaints about the changes Mr Crane had introduced, and started to make a log of incidents as they occurred. He then wrote a letter to Mr Crane on 10 October 2013 setting out, among other things, that the increased workload was causing him to suffer from stress, and that he did not believe that Mr Crane was sufficiently aware of the nature or effect of his disability. He also asked that there be a reduction in his teaching load and a reduction or prioritization of tasks and deadlines.

In October 2013 Mr Grosset was informed by his consultant that his lung function had fallen to below 50%, whereas it would normally be in the 60% range.

On 8 November 2013 Mr Grosset showed the 18-rated horror film ‘Halloween’ to a class of 15/16 year-olds. Later in November 2013 Mr Grosset felt that he could no longer continue to work due to the stress that his increased workload was causing him, and was signed off work sick. He remained absent from work due to illness until his dismissal.

On 29 November 2013, whilst covering for Mr Grosset in his absence, Mr Crane discovered that Mr Grosset had allow his students to watch ‘Halloween’. Mr Crane was concerned by this and called Mr Grosset to inform him that he was being suspended. He also asked that a colleague, Mr Haigh, investigate the incident. Mr Haigh conducted an investigation and concluded that Mr Grosset had shown the film to a class of vulnerable students without first obtaining parental consent, or seeking the approval of the head teacher. Mr Grosset was subsequently dismissed by way of letter dated 1 May 2014 for gross misconduct, after a disciplinary hearing was held. Mr Grosset appealed the decision to dismiss him but was not successful. He subsequently made a variety of claims in the Employment Tribunal, including claims for unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed Mr Grosset’s claims for direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment, unfair dismissal, and victimisation. It did, however, uphold his claims for discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and breach of contract.

With regards to the discrimination arising from disability claim, the Employment Tribunal upheld two complaints: firstly, that the increase in his workload discriminated against him and, secondly, that his dismissal was discriminatory.

In respect of the first finding, the Tribunal held that there had been a significant increase in workload for Mr Grosset and that this was unfavourable treatment. The Tribunal also held that this unfavourable treatment arose because of something arising in consequence of Mr Grosset’s cystic fibrosis and that the School had failed to sufficiently consider alternatives that would have reduced Mr Grosset’s workload (and therefore his stress levels).

In respect of the second finding, the Tribunal held that Mr Grosset’s cystic fibrosis had been exacerbated by the stress that he had been suffering, and that his deteriorating condition had caused him to make an error of judgment. The Tribunal accepted that Mr Grosset’s error of judgment was a “side effect of the stress caused, in significant part, by his cystic fibrosis” – the effect was circular: the more stress that Mr Grosset suffered the worse his condition became, and the worse his condition became the more he suffered from stress. The Tribunal also dismissed an argument by the School that Mr Grosset’s dismissal was justified by the need to safeguard children: the Tribunal accepted that the need to safeguard children was a legitimate policy but that the decision to dismiss Mr Grosset was not proportionate – the Tribunal considered that, given Mr Grosset’s unblemished disciplinary and performance record, a final written warning would have been appropriate in the circumstances.

With regards to the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal upheld this claim on the basis that two adjustments (sufficient notice of meetings and consultation over major changes) agreed with the previous head teacher had not been notified to Mr Crane when he started his job.

By a majority decision the Tribunal decided that Mr Grosset’s dismissal was fair: the School had undertaken a reasonable investigation, had based its decision to dismiss on the outcome of that investigation, had made a reasonable decision based on the facts before it, and had a genuine belief in Mr Grosset’s guilt.

Chris Hadrill, a partner in the Employment Department at Redmans, commented on the case: “This case reinforces that employers must ensure that there is continuity in place for disabled employees if there is a change of management, and must also ensure that the effects of a disabled employee’s condition are suitably taken into account in any disciplinary or capability process.”

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.72 Average

89 Reviews

Anonymous

I requested Redmans services on a redundancy case. Both Chris and Rana were great, thoughtful, very professional and responded quickly. They were very clear throughout the entire process, regarding the process and my options and I couldn't feel I had better legal advice for my case. Overall excellent service and I would certainly recommend and use their services again.

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

Responsive, patient, thorough and personable - an excellent service.

Posted 5 days ago

Anonymous

The team at Redmans, Chris Hadrill and Sacha Barrett were always very helpful and had expert knowledge to assist me during my employment law matter, I would not hesitate to recommend them to all!

Posted 5 days ago

Arun T

Chris was punctual, attentive and accurate. He answered my questions with clarity and avoided dubiosity. I would recommend him to anyone seeking legal advice within his remit.

Posted 6 days ago

Yulian Z

Great service

Posted 6 days ago

Anonymous

Excellent, professional service and a speedy resolution. Many thanks

Posted 6 days ago

Taral P

Sacha and Chris were both very helpful in closing out my matter. Sacha was very clear in helping me understanding the documents I needed reviewing, providing a professional service throughout.

Posted 6 days ago

Anonymous

Really pleased with the swift and professional service from Redmans. They provided very clear advice and helped conclude my matter with the minimum of stress or delay.

Posted 6 days ago

Matthew L

Redmans were very quick to respond to my initial enquiry, and provided me with a very effective and efficient service, generating a most satisfactory outcome. I would definitely use them again if the need arose.

Posted 6 days ago

Anonymous

First rate service. Warm and friendly whilst exceptionally efficient at the same time. I would highly recommend them.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Professional and helpful. Thorough and supportive.

Posted 1 week ago

Richard A

Excellent service, prompt replies, great advice

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Very professional services

Posted 1 week ago

Margaret

Redmans Solicitors took a lot of the worry away and were very thoughtful and meticulous in their dealings with my case , thank you very mush , great service and a great job

Posted 1 month ago

Mark B

Prompt efficient service. Hourly, and part thereof, billing got a bit stressful at times - as opposed to flat fee - made me think twice about sending an email or making a quick call when I had a query because it would have eaten up minutes from my budget. But happy with the legal service I received overall and would recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill has provided a truly wonderful service and was willing to lend his support and expertise at a time when other solicitors, only wanted to discuss their fees! A clear thinking and down to earth professional, Chris can be trusted to listen carefully to your matter, cut through the fog, and advise you on the best (and most realistic) way forward, saving you time, money and heartache. It will be helpful if you first get your ducks in a row in terms of documents / evidence etc. and then contact Chris, (that’s what we did) as this will help your matter to be dealt with faster. The more organised and together you are the more successful you will be. You'll be fine with Chris, I highly recommend him. Good luck!

Posted 1 month ago

Richard v

Excellent Service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Very happy from service received. Highly recommend

Posted 1 month ago

Colin W

Very professional and thorough. Sachs who dealt with the bulk of my case was excellent Thank you. .

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I was generally impressed with the fast turn around, efficiency, responsiveness, and consideration of circumstances. I needed a couple of areas of advice quickly and with Redmans help was able to get to a conclusion quickly and with minimum stress. They were friendly and professional throughout - I'd use them again.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

The guidance and assistance I recently received when using Redman's was fantastic. Caroline & Chris were both very informative and understanding walking me through each step. Thank you.

Posted 2 months ago