Autistic Teacher Awarded 850K After Being Dismissed For Repeatedly Raising Grievances

In Mr ​​Marcus Wright v Cardinal Newman Catholic School, an autistic teacher has been awarded £850,000 after he succeeded with his claims of discrimination arising from disability, unfair dismissal and victimisation. Read on as we discuss the case facts and the tribunal’s judgment.

Contact us now if you have any questions or think your employment rights have been breached. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists, and with our vast experience, we can advise on your possible next steps.

To proceed:

The Facts in Mr ​​Marcus Wright v Cardinal Newman Catholic School

Autistic Teacher: Background of his Claim

Mr Marcus Wright (“The Claimant”) became the head of maths at Cardinal Newman Catholic School (“The Respondent”) in September 2005. When a colleague raised several grievances between April and June 2014 and an employment tribunal claim, which was heard between April and July 2015, he became heavily involved and provided support.

Prior to the court proceedings, on 5 December 2014, the respondent sent the claimant a letter telling him that his conduct would be investigated. It had been alleged that he had failed to attend an external event on 1 December and left school early three days later.

The claimant explained that both incidents occurred because he had been unwell. To substantiate this, a doctor’s note was produced on 8 December, which showed that he had been suffering from atrial fibrillation. Then, on 15 December, he was signed off unfit to work, with work-related stress partly the cause.

Despite providing a doctor’s note to account for his recent conduct, on 10 February 2015, the claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing concerning allegations of dishonesty regarding his lack of attendance at the external event and rudeness to a colleague. Following the hearing, he received a written warning.

Claimant Requests Autism Referral

Just over a year later, on 26 April 2016, the claimant came across a document in his work pigeonhole. This turned out to be an extract from the school handbook containing his name, which had been crossed out.

The claimant took this discovery as evidence he was being targeted and filed a grievance in June. He stated the document proved the respondent was trying to undermine him due to his involvement in his colleague’s claim. He added that such treatment was having a “detrimental impact” on his health. 

Unfortunately, the grievance was dismissed. The claimant appealed this decision, and in February 2017, the respondent appointed an external HR consultant to investigate his bullying allegations.

Around the same time, an autism assessment referral was requested by the claimant, as he suspected he had autism. This was because individuals in and outside of work had suggested he may be autistic. He wanted to find out if this was the case and whether this was affecting his mental health.

Settlement Agreement Offered to Autistic Teacher

On 14 June, the claimant received correspondence from a union representative assessing his willingness to accept a financial settlement in return for his departure. Six days later, he was invited to meet with the chair of governors, Mr Tim Williamson, following instruction from headteacher Mr James Kilmartin. 

It was established that Mr Kilmartin had advised Mr Williamson that the claimant had to leave, as he couldn’t work with him anymore and wanted his employment terminated. The headteacher felt this way, as he believed the claimant had wasted a disproportionate amount of his and other senior leaders’ time with repeated grievances and bullying allegations.

When Mr Williamson met with the claimant, he offered a financial settlement in return for the claimant’s departure. Mr Williamson expected the offer to be accepted since the financial figure was substantial. 

However, when the claimant rejected the offer, the mood became hostile. He was subsequently suspended that day, pending an investigation into whether his employment could continue, given his relationship breakdown with Mr Kilmartin. Despite his previous complaints, this left the claimant “devastated” as he loved his job.

Deputy Head Proposes New Role

On 28 June, the claimant was informed that his grievance appeal had been unsuccessful. Then, on 17 September, he raised a second grievance and two months later, he was formally diagnosed with autism. By January of the following year, the claimant learned that his second grievance also hadn’t been upheld.

Over the summer of 2018, the autistic teacher was invited to several mediation days and was assessed by the National Autistic Society (NAS) to explore adjustments for his work return. This led to a meeting with the then-deputy headteacher, Ms Claire Jarman, who discussed the NAS’ recommendations to facilitate his return on 21 September.

The teacher with autism believed the meeting with Ms Jarman was positive. However, on 6 November, the deputy head contacted him, proposing he return as a high-performance coach (HPC). This was completely different from his previous head of maths role and gave him cause for concern as it was essentially a demotion. The claimant’s solicitor shared similar concerns and contacted the respondent on 15 November. 

Working “Under Protest” Leads to Dismissal

By the new year, the autistic teacher raised his third grievance. This concerned the proposal to return as an HPC, and was submitted on 8 January 2019. Unfortunately, when the grievance outcome was received on 30 April, the claimant learned he would have to accept the HPC role before returning.

The respondent reasoned that mutual trust would need to be redeveloped before the claimant could return as the head of maths. They added that starting in the HPC role would allow this to happen.

At first, the claimant wanted to appeal this decision. This changed, though, after the respondent threatened to dismiss him if he didn’t accept the HPC role. As a consequence, he accepted it “under protest” on 30 May.

However, the respondent wasn’t satisfied. Since the autistic teacher would return “under protest”, they didn’t believe this would represent a “satisfactory position” for anyone. As a result, in an email dated 31 May, they said, “In spite of our best efforts, we have now exhausted all avenues… Therefore your employment Is being terminated…” As per the email, this was effective from 31 August. 

The claimant subsequently appealed his dismissal, but this proved unsuccessful in December. He also pursued claims of unfair dismissal, victimisation and discrimination arising from disability, which had been initiated in February.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following proceedings, the employment tribunal ruled on the case of the teacher with autism. They began with his unfair dismissal claim, addressing the respondent’s assertion that the dismissal arose due to capability concerns. 

The tribunal quickly rejected this position, stating, “The real reason the claimant was dismissed was because he would not accept the HPC role unconditionally”. They explained that had he not worked “under protest” or continued to pursue his claims, he would still be in the role.

The respondent also tried to reason that the dismissal came about as a result of the relationship breakdown. However, since they were willing to offer the autistic teacher the HPC role, the tribunal believed this undermined their argument. As such, because no potentially fair reason for dismissal could be found, they ruled the claimant had been unfairly dismissed.

Then, the tribunal turned to the claim of victimisation. Following a similar thought process, the tribunal also upheld this claim. They explained this was because the dismissal was “significantly influenced” by the claimant’s desire to pursue legal action. Since his discrimination claim was a protected act, the less favourable treatment he experienced amounted to victimisation.

Finally, the tribunal ruled upon the claim of discrimination arising from disability. They highlighted that the less favourable treatment the claimant faced arose from his obsessive behaviour. This was first made clear when Mr Kilmartin wanted him gone due to the “disproportionate” amount of time his multiple complaints allegedly wasted.

Since this conduct resulted from the claimant’s autism, the tribunal held he’d faced disability discrimination. Following the autistic teacher’s successful claims, he was awarded £850,000.

If you’ve any questions or want help with your claim, please: