Geography teacher dismissed after relationship breakdown: unfair dismissal and victimisation claim succeeds in part
A tribunal found that a geography teacher with seven years' service was unfairly dismissed by United Learning Trust after a breakdown in relationships, and that a headteacher victimised him by providing a negative reference. He was awarded £36,677.70.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #occupational-health
- #reference-victimisation
- #polkey-reduction
- #contributory-fault
Key facts
- Mr Haq was a Geography teacher and Senior Lead Practitioner at Marsden Heights Community College.
- He refused to engage with an informal support process after performance concerns were raised in 2021.
- He was dismissed on 6 July 2022 due to a breakdown in relationships and failure to return to work.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because the employer did not wait for his sickness certificate to expire.
- Miss Littlewood provided a negative reference to a prospective employer, which the tribunal found was victimisation.
- The tribunal awarded £36,677.70 in total compensation for unfair dismissal and victimisation.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Mr Haq started as a Geography teacher at Marsden Heights Community College.
-
Lesson visits began
Helen Butler began coaching visits to Mr Haq's classroom as part of the PDR process.
-
Informal support proposed
Ms Butler proposed a six-week informal support plan; Mr Haq declined to attend.
-
First grievance
Mr Haq raised a grievance against Ms Butler, which was later dismissed.
-
First sickness absence
Mr Haq commenced sickness absence due to work-related stress.
-
Threatening email
Miss Littlewood emailed Mr Haq threatening disciplinary action if he did not attend meetings.
-
Grievance dismissed
Rev. Saville dismissed Mr Haq's grievance against Ms Butler.
-
Second sickness absence
Mr Haq began a five-month sickness absence.
-
Occupational health report
OH recommended mediation or a new supervisor; the school did not act on it.
-
Return to work
Mr Haq returned after five months' absence.
-
Race discrimination allegation
Mr Haq raised a grievance alleging race discrimination for the first time.
-
Third sickness absence
Mr Haq was signed off sick again and did not return before dismissal.
-
ACAS referral email
Mr Haq emailed stating he had referred the matter to ACAS (protected act).
-
Dismissal meeting
The Attendance and Dismissal Committee decided to dismiss Mr Haq.
-
Negative reference
Miss Littlewood completed a reference for Harper Green, which the tribunal found victimising.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the teacher was unfairly dismissed due to a breakdown in relationships, and whether he was subjected to race discrimination, harassment, or victimisation by the school trust and individual managers.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the teacher was unfairly dismissed by United Learning Trust. The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the employer did not wait for his sickness certificate to expire before making the decision. However, there was an 85% chance that he would have been dismissed anyway had a fair procedure been followed (Polkey reduction). No further reduction was made for contributory fault.
The tribunal also found that headteacher Alyson Littlewood victimised the teacher by providing a negative reference to a prospective employer. This was a protected act because the teacher had referred the matter to ACAS. The trust and Ms Littlewood were both liable.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £2,997.75
- Total awarded: £36,677.70 (including compensation for victimisation and unfair dismissal, after Polkey reduction of 85%)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should not rush to dismiss an employee who is on sick leave without waiting for their fit note to expire, as this can make the dismissal procedurally unfair.
- Providing a negative reference to a former employee who has raised a grievance or ACAS claim can amount to victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
- Even if a dismissal is unfair, tribunals may apply a Polkey reduction if they find the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway with a fair process.
- Employees who bring claims in person should ensure their witness statements are detailed and address key events, as superficial evidence can weaken their case.
- Poorly prepared hearing bundles and witness statements can make it harder for tribunals to understand the case, but they will still decide on the evidence available.
What this case shows in practice
A geography teacher with seven years' service at Marsden Heights Community College found himself in a dispute with management after performance concerns were raised through the school's coaching system. He refused to engage with an informal support plan, believing the concerns were not genuine. This led to a breakdown in relationships and periods of sickness absence due to work-related stress.
The school eventually dismissed him on 6 July 2022, citing a breakdown in relationships and his failure to return to work. However, the tribunal found that the decision was procedurally unfair because the dismissal meeting took place while the teacher was still signed off sick – his sickness certificate had not yet expired. The employer should have waited for the certificate to run its course before making a final decision.
What the losing side could have done differently
United Learning Trust could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by simply waiting a few more days until the teacher's fit note expired before holding the dismissal meeting. That small delay would likely have made the process fair. The trust also failed to act on an occupational health report that recommended mediation or a change of supervisor – a step that might have repaired the relationship.
The headteacher, Alyson Littlewood, made a serious error by providing a negative reference to a prospective employer after the teacher had left. The tribunal found this was victimisation, as it was a direct response to the teacher having referred the matter to ACAS – a protected act. Employers should be aware that references must be factual and balanced, and any negative content linked to a protected act can lead to liability.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case illustrates that even where an employer has genuine concerns about performance or relationships, the process must be fair. Dismissing an employee while they are on certified sick leave is a clear procedural error. It also shows that victimisation claims can succeed even when other discrimination claims fail – the negative reference was a standalone act of retaliation.
The Polkey reduction of 85% meant the teacher received only a fraction of the compensation he might otherwise have got, but the total award of £36,677.70 still reflects the seriousness of the procedural unfairness and the victimisation. For employees considering similar claims, this case highlights the importance of documenting protected acts and seeking legal advice early, especially when representing yourself.
Similar cases
Faculty manager with 23 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy selection tainted by disability bias
A tribunal found that Canterbury Christ Church University unfairly dismissed a faculty manager and discriminated against her because of her disability when it decided she was not appointable to a new role due to her ill health. She was awarded £32,684.
Dismissed while on long-term sick leave: a capability process that fell short
An employment tribunal has ruled that a hire controller with degenerative disc disease was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of her disability. The respondent, Torrent Trackside Ltd, dismissed her without warning after 10 months' absence.
Nurse dismissed after stroke: procedural unfairness in redeployment process
A Band 5 Staff Nurse with 21 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a stroke left him unable to return to his nursing role. The tribunal found the trust's failure to hold a final meeting made the dismissal procedurally unfair, but a fair process would have led to dismissal by September 2020. He was awarded £13,272.
Customer assistant unfairly dismissed after safety concerns ignored
A part-time customer assistant who raised safety concerns after a customer incident was unfairly dismissed by Marks and Spencer for capability. The tribunal awarded £15,004.41.