Associate Headteacher with 20 years' service resigned before redundancy: claims dismissed
An associate headteacher who resigned after being told her role would be made redundant lost her claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination. The tribunal found she was not dismissed but resigned voluntarily.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #age-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #constructive-dismissal
- #redundancy
- #associate-headteacher
- #retirement
Key facts
- The claimant was an Associate Headteacher at Immanuel College, part of the respondent Trust.
- The claimant's role was to be made redundant following the retirement of the Executive Headteacher.
- The claimant was informed of the proposed redundancy at an informal meeting on 2 December 2020.
- The claimant resigned on 10 December 2020, agreeing to leave on 31 August 2021.
- The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed, but resigned voluntarily.
- The tribunal dismissed all claims of age discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Timeline
-
Claimant started as Deputy Head Teacher
Janet Inglis began employment as a Deputy Head Teacher at Immanuel College.
-
TUPE transfer to respondent
Immanuel College became part of Bradford Diocesan Academies Trust, and the claimant's employment transferred under TUPE.
-
Appointed Associate Headteacher
The claimant and another deputy were appointed as Associate Headteachers, forming an Executive Leadership Team.
-
Reduced hours to 60%
The claimant's hours were reduced from 80% to 60% at her request.
-
Governors' meeting decided to delete AHT role
The Leadership and Management Committee decided in principle to replace the Executive Headteacher role with a standalone Headteacher and delete the Associate Headteacher role.
-
Claimant informed of meeting
Jane Tiller told the claimant that a meeting would be arranged with Carol Dewhurst and Denise Stirling.
-
Informal meeting about redundancy
Carol Dewhurst and Denise Stirling informed the claimant that her role would be made redundant as part of a restructure.
-
Conversation with Jane Tiller
The claimant asked Jane Tiller if she could stay until August 2021 if she resigned; Tiller agreed.
-
Claimant resigned
The claimant handed in a resignation letter, agreeing to leave on 31 August 2021.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment ended in accordance with her resignation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed (including constructively) or resigned, and whether the redundancy process amounted to age discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant resigned voluntarily after agreeing to stay until August 2021. There was no dismissal, so the unfair dismissal claim failed. The age discrimination claims were also rejected as the redundancy decision was based on a genuine restructuring, not the claimant's age.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you resign after being told your role is at risk, you may not be able to claim unfair dismissal unless you were forced out.
- A genuine restructuring that eliminates a role can be a fair redundancy, even if you have long service.
- Age discrimination claims require evidence that age was a factor in the decision, not just that older employees are affected.
When a resignation is not a dismissal
This case shows the importance of how an employment relationship ends. The claimant, an associate headteacher with 20 years' service, was told her role would be made redundant following the retirement of the executive headteacher. Rather than wait for a formal redundancy process, she negotiated a resignation that allowed her to stay until August 2021. The tribunal found this was a voluntary resignation, not a dismissal.
What the employer did right
The trust had a genuine business reason for the restructure: the executive headteacher was retiring, and the school needed a standalone headteacher, making the associate headteacher role redundant. The tribunal accepted that the decision was not about the claimant's age or performance, but about the new structure. The informal meeting on 2 December 2020 was not a dismissal meeting; it was a notification of a proposed redundancy. The claimant then initiated the resignation herself.
Why the claims failed
The claimant argued that she was constructively dismissed because the trust acted in breach of contract by not following a proper redundancy process. However, the tribunal found that the trust had not yet started a formal process when she resigned. There was no fundamental breach that entitled her to treat herself as dismissed. Similarly, the age discrimination claim failed because there was no evidence that age played any part in the decision to delete her role. The restructuring affected only her role, not because she was older, but because the leadership structure was changing.
Key takeaway for employees
If you are told your role is at risk, think carefully before resigning. Once you resign voluntarily, you lose the right to claim unfair dismissal unless you can show you were forced out. It is often better to wait for the employer's formal process and see what alternatives are offered. In this case, the claimant's long service and distinguished career did not change the outcome because the resignation was her own choice.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.
Redundancy dismissal timed just before 55th birthday: unfair dismissal over pension loss
An Arrears and Investigations Manager with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed when Slough Borough Council failed to consult properly and timed her redundancy 17 days before her 55th birthday, costing her pension access. Tribunal awarded £60,625.84.
Street cleaner with 40+ years' service loses constructive dismissal claim filed a year late
A street cleaner who was pressured to resign on his 66th birthday had his constructive dismissal claim dismissed because he filed it almost a year late. The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the case.