Supply teacher wins right to add victimisation claim against school

A procedural win for a supply teacher

This case shows how preliminary hearings can shape the direction of a discrimination claim. The supply teacher, who worked for just 28 days at Ravenscroft Park Preparatory School, had already brought claims for disability discrimination. She then sought to add a victimisation claim, arguing that the school treated her unfairly after she raised a grievance.

The tribunal allowed the amendment, meaning the victimisation allegations will be considered alongside the original claims. This is a significant procedural victory: it allows the teacher to present a fuller picture of alleged mistreatment, including the school's response to her grievance.

Anonymity granted on reconsideration

Initially, the tribunal refused the teacher's request for an anonymity order, which would prevent her name from being published. However, on reconsideration, the judge changed course and granted the order. This highlights that tribunals can revisit decisions if new arguments or evidence are presented.

For individuals bringing sensitive claims, this demonstrates that persistence can pay off. The school's application to strike out the claim was refused, and an attempt to add a school employee as a separate respondent also failed.

What this means for similar claims

The case underscores that even short-term workers can pursue discrimination claims. The school conceded the teacher was a 'worker' for discrimination purposes, which is a lower threshold than 'employee'. This is a reminder that employment status is not always a barrier to bringing a claim under the Equality Act 2010.

For anyone considering a similar case, the key takeaway is that procedural applications—like amendments and anonymity orders—can be complex but are worth pursuing with proper legal advice. The case also shows that tribunals will carefully manage cases to ensure all relevant issues are heard.