EAT Ruling on Individual Liability in Discrimination Claims

Miss C Baldwin v Cleves School & Others

Background

The Claimant, Miss C Baldwin brought claims against her employer, Cleves School, and two individual respondents (Mr. Hodges and Ms. Miller), alleging disability discrimination, victimisation, and harassment under the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant was employed as a newly qualified teacher (NQT) and resigned from her position after experiencing various issues related to her health and treatment from her colleagues Mr Hodges and Ms Miller.

Employment Tribunal (ET) Findings

The ET found that Cleves School was liable for the two acts of disability discrimination. The acts were:

1. An email from Ms. Miller requesting information about the Claimant’s health, which was deemed to be sent because of her perceived disability.
2. Comments in an NQT report by Mr. Hodges suggesting the Claimant lacked integrity, which were found to be related to her disability.

However, the ET dismissed the other claims, including the claims under S.110 EqA against the individual respondents. They concluded that the actions of the individual respondents were misguided attempts to manage a complex situation.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Decision

The EAT allowed the Claimant’s appeal, finding that the ET had erred by not holding the individual Respondents liable under s.110 EqA. The EAT substituted the ET's decision with a finding of contravention of s.110 by the individual Respondents for the discriminatory acts.

Key Judgments

1. Liability of Individual Respondents: The EAT determined that the ET misinterpreted s.110 EqA. The ET should have found the individual Respondents liable for discrimination if the conditions of s.110 were met, regardless of whether the employer (Cleves School) was also liable.
2. Victimisation Claim: The ET failed to address one of the Claimant’s victimisation claims related to her raising concerns about Ms. Miller's email. The EAT found that the ET’s subsequent clarification adequately explained why it did not uphold this claim.
3. Harassment Claim: The ET did not act perversely in failing to find that an email from Mr. Hodges constituted harassment. The EAT agreed with the ET’s assessment that the email, while causing concern, did not meet the threshold for harassment under s.26 EqA.

Implications for Union Representatives

1. Clarification of s.110 EqA: This case highlights the importance of understanding individual liability under s.110 EqA. Union representatives should ensure members are aware that individual employees can be held liable for discriminatory acts if they meet the criteria under s.110.
2. Raising and Documenting Concerns: The failure to address the Claimant’s victimisation claim underscores the need for thorough documentation and clear articulation of all protected acts and related detriments in claims.
3. ACAS Early Conciliation: while not a feature of the judgment is important if members wish to pursue claims against individual respondents. It is important that ACAS Early Conciliation is registered against all potential respondents, not just the employer. If overlooked this can mean that claims against individuals can be out of time and much harder to pursue.

Conclusion

The EAT's decision in Miss C Baldwin v Cleves School & Others reinforces the broad scope of individual liability under the EqA and the need for careful handling of discrimination claims. Union representatives must be vigilant in supporting members through these processes, ensuring all claims are properly articulated and pursued.