The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently heard the harassment case of Mr F Ahmed v The Cardinal Hume Academies, in which it had to consider whether it was direct discrimination for a school to suspend one of its teachers due to the fact that he could only write by hand for a few minutes.
Mr F Ahmed v The Cardinal Hume Academies
Case background
Mr Ahmed was a trainee teacher at The Cardinal Hume Academies. He suffers from dyspraxia, which effects his overall co-ordination.
At a meeting with the school’s Head Teacher, Mr Rowland, the Claimant raised the fact that writing for more than a few minutes’ caused him physical pain. Mr Rowland raised concerns with the Claimant about this in relation to how he could fully undertake his work responsibilities and these remarks were construed as harassment by Mr Ahmed.
After the meeting, Mr Rowland suspended Mr Ahmed, pending an investigation, as the school was concerned that he could not fulfil his role in the classroom. As a result of the suspension, the Claimant resigned and launched a formal grievance against the school on the grounds of constructive dismissal, claiming that he had been the victim of disability discrimination and harassment.
Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings
The ET dismissed Mr Ahmed’s constructive dismissal claim. Whilst it acknowledged that the remarks made during the meeting by Mr Rowland offended the Claimant, they did not amount to harassment, nor was it unreasonable for the school to suspend the Claimant, pending an investigation.
Mr Ahmed appealed the ET’s decision. He believed that it had failed to consider Section 26(4) of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996 in its judgment regarding his harassment claim and the other circumstances of his case.
EAT proceedings
The EAT in its judgment referred to the Court of Appeal case of Pemberton v Inwood, and agreed with the ET. It ruled that the factors outlined in Section 26(4) of the ERA didn’t need to be considered in this instance because the school had acted in a reasonable manner in suspending Mr Ahmed, pending an investigation.
The EAT also ruled that Mr Ahmed’s physical pain, as a result of writing by hand, was an adverse effect of his disability but was not the disability itself. Therefore, his suspension from the school could not be deemed to be directly discriminatory due to his disability.
How Nelsons Can Help
For further information or to comment on this article, please contact our Employment Law team on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.