Skip to content

Education Law Speed Read – 21/05/18

This week we look at a case concerning Grosset v City of York Council and disability discrimination.

Grosset v City of York Council

Mr Grosset, a teacher at a school within the Respondent Council, was dismissed for gross misconduct in 2014 after he showed a class of 15-year old pupils the horror film “Halloween”.

Mr Grosset suffered from cystic fibrosis and was required to spend up to 3 hours per day performing exercises and routines to keep his lungs clear. The school accepted that Mr Grosset was disabled and put in place adjustments to help him.

In September 2013, the school appointed a new head teacher who was not made aware of Mr Grosset’s disability or the adjustments that had been put in place. The head teacher chose to put in place new standards to improve Mr Grosset’s department, English. This led to a substantial increase in Mr Grosset’s workload including fortnightly inspections and a new syllabus. Mr Grosset began to struggle with his increased workload and his health deteriorated.

Mr Grosset often ran a session after exams to aid students complete coursework. To do this, he would show a film that helped students understand the creation of a narrative. Mr Grosset chose the 18-rated “Halloween”. Mr Grosset was soon after absent due to ill health and was covered by the head teacher who raised concerns over Mr Grosset’s film choice.

Due to this, Mr Grosset was suspended and eventually dismissed for gross misconduct.

Employment Tribunal (ET)

The ET did not agree that Mr Grosset had been unfairly dismissed as the decision was within the range of reasonable responses open to the school. The ET also dismissed Mr Grosset’s claim that the decision to show the film was an error in judgment caused by his stress and increased workload.

The ET upheld Mr Grosset’s claims that the school had failed to consider reasonable adjustments in relation to Mr Grosset’s workload following the appointment of the new head teacher and that his increased workload was unfair treatment arising from his disability, making it discriminatory. It also held that the school had not considered alternatives that would have reduced Mr Grosset’s workload and so his stress levels.

The ET 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 ET rejected the school’s argument that the dismissal was not proportionate and could not be justified as seeking to safeguard the children.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)

Both parties appealed this decision and the EAT rejected both appeals.

The EAT concluded that the school had treated Mr Grosset unfavourably because of something related to his disability. The something referred to was showing the film and it was a consequence of the stress caused by Mr Grosset’s disability.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held that two issues had to be considered. First, whether the school had treated Mr Grosset unfavourably because of an (identified) “something”, and second whether that “something” arose in consequence of his disability.  The Court determined that the relevant “something” was Mr Grosset’s dismissal due to him showing the film and that the ET found that this was a result of the exceptionally high stress Mr Grosset was subject to, which arose from the effect of his disability when new and increased demands were made of him at work.

Due to this, the Court of Appeal concluded that the law did not require the ET to find that the school knew there was a link between the misconduct and disability.  Knowledge is only relevant to whether the employer knows that the employee is disabled at all.

Effect 

This decision places a high onus on schools to investigate the reasons behind the behaviour of an employee who they know is disabled, rather than presuming an employee’s actions are not related to their disability. This case is concerning for schools as the school was found to be guilty of discrimination even though it had concluded, on the basis of the available evidence, that the reason for which it dismissed the Mr Grosset was not caused by his disability.

If you have any queries on the above and how it will affect you, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our education team.

Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.

This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.

Follow us on LinkedIn

Keep up to date with all the latest updates and insights from our expert team

Take me there

What we're thinking