Probation extensions and safeguarding referral: disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claim rejected
A tribunal dismissed claims of disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal brought by a learning mentor with dyslexia and anxiety/depression, finding the employer acted reasonably throughout.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #dyslexia
- #anxiety-and-depression
- #probation-extension
- #safeguarding-referral
- #constructive-knowledge
- #workload
Key facts
- The claimant began work as a Post 16 Outreach Learning Mentor on 4 September 2019.
- The claimant has dyslexia and anxiety/depression, accepted as disabilities under the Equality Act 2010.
- The claimant's probation was extended three times due to absence and inability to assess performance.
- The first respondent made safeguarding referrals about the claimant's son on 26 and 27 March 2020.
- The claimant resigned on 6 November 2020 citing a fundamental breach of trust and confidence.
- The tribunal found the respondents did not know the claimant was disabled for dyslexia until 25 February 2020, and had constructive knowledge of anxiety/depression from 18 December 2019.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as Post 16 Outreach Learning Mentor with a 6-month probation period.
-
NEET meeting and dyslexia disclosure
At a meeting, the claimant's spelling and typing speed were criticised; she disclosed her dyslexia afterwards.
-
Road traffic incident
Claimant involved in a road traffic incident, leading to absence and a mental health crisis.
-
Self-referral to Occupational Health
Claimant self-referred to OH citing anxiety and depression; she also provided a fit note recommending reduced workload.
-
First probation extension
Probation extended to 3 June 2020 due to high sickness absence.
-
Report deadline conflict
Claimant was asked to complete a report for the Director of Children's Services, leading to a 75-mile round trip and working late.
-
Safeguarding referral
First respondent made a safeguarding referral to social services about the claimant's son based on information from a colleague.
-
Second probation extension
Probation extended to 30 June 2020 due to Covid-19 lockdown and leave.
-
Grievance lodged
Claimant filed a grievance against the first respondent and commenced tribunal proceedings.
-
Third probation extension
Probation extended to 24 August 2020 pending OH report.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned with immediate effect, citing fundamental breach of trust and confidence.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's actions – including extending probation, making a safeguarding referral, and failing to adjust workloads – amounted to disability discrimination or a constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the employer did not know the claimant's dyslexia was a disability until after her employment ended, and had constructive knowledge of her anxiety/depression only from December 2019. The probation extensions were due to absence and performance issues, not disability. The safeguarding referral was a legitimate concern based on information from a colleague. The grievance was handled reasonably. The claimant resigned voluntarily, but there was no fundamental breach of contract by the employer.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure they have up-to-date medical evidence before making decisions about disabled employees, but reasonable reliance on existing information may be acceptable.
- A safeguarding referral made in good faith based on information from colleagues is unlikely to amount to discrimination, even if the employee disputes the accuracy.
- Probation extensions based on absence and performance issues, rather than disability, are likely to be lawful if the employer follows its procedures.
- Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract by the employer – a perception of unfair treatment is not enough.
Overview
This case shows the limits of disability discrimination law when an employer acts on legitimate concerns rather than prejudice. The claimant, a Post 16 Outreach Learning Mentor with dyslexia and anxiety/depression, argued that her probation extensions, a safeguarding referral about her son, and a heavy workload were all linked to her disabilities. The tribunal disagreed, finding the employer's actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
What the employer did right
The employer extended the claimant's probation three times – but each time for reasons unrelated to her disabilities: first for high sickness absence, then due to Covid-19 lockdown, and finally pending an occupational health report. The tribunal noted that the employer did not know the claimant's dyslexia was a disability at the time, and only had constructive knowledge of her anxiety/depression from mid-December 2019. The safeguarding referral was made after a colleague reported concerns about the claimant's son – the tribunal accepted this was a genuine welfare concern, not discrimination.
What the claimant could not prove
The claimant argued she was given too much work and excluded from meetings because of her disabilities. But the tribunal found the workload was not excessive for her role, and the meetings she was excluded from were about other employees. Her grievance was investigated, though slowly – but the delay was not linked to her disability. The tribunal also rejected her constructive dismissal claim, as the employer had not fundamentally breached her contract. Resigning because she felt unsupported did not make the dismissal unfair.
Key takeaway
This case is a reminder that not every negative experience at work amounts to discrimination, even if the employee has a disability. Tribunals will look at whether the employer knew or should have known about the disability, and whether the treatment was 'because of' that disability. Here, the employer's actions were justified by performance, absence, and safeguarding concerns – not by the claimant's protected characteristics.
Similar cases
Sonographer forced to clean and threatened with deportation: race discrimination upheld
A black African sonographer was racially harassed and discriminated against after being required to perform cleaning duties and threatened with deportation. The tribunal awarded £33,611.12.
Senior HR manager's constructive dismissal claim dismissed: resignation was for better job
A senior HR manager who resigned after accepting a higher-paid job failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal or discrimination. The Birmingham tribunal found no breach of contract by National Highways Ltd.
Dyslexic programme manager loses constructive dismissal claim over performance plan
A programme manager with dyslexia who resigned after an informal performance improvement plan and a partially upheld grievance has lost her constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claims.
Funeral director with 31 years' service fails to establish disability status
An employment tribunal has ruled that a funeral director with 31 years' service was not a disabled person under the Equality Act, dismissing his disability discrimination claims.