Miss C Baldwin vs Cleves School, Mr C Hodges, and Ms S Miller

This case involved Miss C Baldwin's appeal against Cleves School, Mr C Hodges, and Ms S Miller concerning claims of disability discrimination, victimisation, and harassment under the Equality Act 2010.

TLDR:

• Miss C Baldwin filed claims for disability discrimination against her employer, Cleves School, and two individual respondents.
• The Employment Tribunal found the School liable for two acts of disability discrimination but dismissed claims against the individual respondents.
• The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal erred in not finding individual liability under section 110 of the Equality Act 2010.

The claimant, Miss C Baldwin, was employed by Cleves School as a newly qualified teacher (NQT) from September 2014 until her resignation in March 2015. She brought claims of disability discrimination against the School and two individual respondents, Mr C Hodges and Ms S Miller, under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA).

The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that the School was liable for two acts of disability discrimination done by the individual respondents but dismissed the claims against the individuals themselves. The ET reasoned that the acts were misguided attempts to address a complex situation.

On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered three grounds. The first ground was that the ET erred in not finding the individual respondents liable under section 110 of the EqA. The EAT held that section 110 confers no discretion on the ET not to find a contravention if the conditions for individual liability are met. Therefore, the ET erred, and the EAT substituted a finding of a contravention of section 110 by the individual respondents.

The second ground of appeal was that the ET failed to address one of the complaints of victimisation contrary to section 27 of the EqA in its written reasons. The EAT found that the subsequent reasons provided by the ET adequately explained why it had not upheld that particular complaint.

The third ground concerned an email sent to the claimant, which was alleged to be an act of harassment under section 26 of the EqA. The EAT held that the ET did not act perversely in failing to find that the email constituted harassment.

The EAT's decision emphasizes the strict application of section 110 of the EqA, which holds individual employees or agents liable for discriminatory acts done in the course of their employment. This case provides important guidance for employment law practitioners on the interpretation and application of individual liability under the EqA.

Legal representatives: Ms C Step-Marsden (instructed by Didlaw Limited) for the Appellant, Ms G Crew (instructed by Lyons Davidson) for the Respondent.

Judicial Panel: Michael Ford KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EAT 66.