Curriculum leader dismissed for submitting unverified predicted grades: dismissal unfair but no compensation
A curriculum leader was unfairly dismissed after submitting predicted grades as final grades without internal verification, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and awarded no compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #internal-verification-failure
- #predicted-grades
- #academic-board
- #pearson-malpractice
- #gross-misconduct
- #procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- The Claimant was Curriculum Leader and Lead Internal Verifier for the HNC/HCP qualification.
- She submitted predicted grades for Units 2 and 3 to the Academic Board as final grades without internal verification.
- The Academic Board finalised grades on 3 July 2020 based on those submissions.
- After the board meeting, E1 continued assessing and grading student work, resulting in 4 out of 14 grades changing.
- The Respondent dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct after an investigation and disciplinary hearing.
- The Tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but that the Claimant would have been dismissed anyway.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Joined a predecessor of the Respondent as Curriculum Manager – Health and Social Care and Workforce Development.
-
E1 appointed
E1 appointed as Hourly Paid Lecturer on a fixed-term contract.
-
Claimant received predicted grades
E1 forwarded predicted grades for Units 2 and 3 to the Claimant, which she believed were final.
-
Academic Board meeting
The Academic Board finalised HNC/HCP grades based on the Claimant's submission of unverified predicted grades.
-
E1 requested payment
E1 emailed the Claimant requesting payment for assessment work done after the Academic Board meeting.
-
Investigation started
Mr. Dangana tasked Mr. Humphreys to investigate potential malpractice.
-
Investigation report completed
Mr. Humphreys concluded that assessment and grading continued after the Academic Board and recommended a disciplinary hearing.
-
Disciplinary hearing
First part of disciplinary hearing held; Claimant admitted some failings.
-
Claimant dismissed
The Respondent summarily dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing held; appeal dismissed on 19 April 2021.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair under the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether the claimant was discriminated against or harassed because of her race under the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair, but applied a 100% Polkey reduction and 100% contributory fault, meaning no compensation was awarded.
- The claimant's claims of race discrimination and harassment were dismissed.
- The breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) claim was also dismissed.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair disciplinary procedure even when the employee's conduct appears serious.
- Employees in roles with quality assurance responsibilities must ensure grades are properly verified before submission.
- A 100% Polkey reduction can eliminate compensation if the employee would have been dismissed anyway.
- Contributory fault can reduce compensation to zero if the employee is entirely responsible for their own dismissal.
- Race discrimination claims require evidence of less favourable treatment because of race; procedural failings alone do not prove discrimination.
What this case shows in practice
A curriculum leader with six years' service submitted predicted grades for two units to the Academic Board as final grades without internal verification. After the board meeting, a lecturer continued assessing and grading student work, resulting in four out of fourteen grades changing. The employer dismissed the curriculum leader for gross misconduct, citing failure to ensure proper assessment procedures.
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because the employer did not follow a fair disciplinary process. However, the tribunal also concluded that the curriculum leader was entirely responsible for her own dismissal and that she would have been dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer could have avoided procedural unfairness by ensuring a more thorough investigation and giving the employee a proper opportunity to respond to all allegations. The curriculum leader could have avoided dismissal by ensuring the predicted grades were internally verified before submission to the Academic Board, as required by her role as Lead Internal Verifier.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case illustrates that even when a dismissal is procedurally unfair, compensation can be reduced to zero if the employee's own conduct was the sole cause of dismissal and a fair process would have led to the same outcome. It also shows that race discrimination claims require direct evidence of discriminatory treatment, not just procedural errors.
Similar cases
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Manager dismissed for password breach wins unfair dismissal claim
A manager with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into password sharing and order deletion. The tribunal awarded £5,552 but reduced compensation because he contributed to his own dismissal.
Lead nurse dismissed for breaching patient confidentiality: procedural failings led to unfair dismissal finding
A lead nurse specialist was unfairly dismissed by Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust after the trust failed to properly handle her grievance. The tribunal found she had committed gross misconduct but the dismissal was procedurally unfair.