Teacher's sex and religion discrimination claims over colleague conflict rejected
A computing teacher who claimed she was discriminated against and harassed due to her sex and religion after a workplace dispute has had all her claims dismissed by an employment tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #sex-discrimination
- #religion-or-belief-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #colleague-conflict
- #probation-extension
- #microsoft-teams-red-font
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a teacher of computing from 1 July 2019.
- The claimant considered herself a manager but colleagues did not, causing tension.
- On 20 November 2019, an incident occurred between the claimant and Mr Dongare, leading to Mr Dongare's dismissal.
- The claimant's relationship with Mrs Dongare deteriorated after the incident.
- The claimant resigned on 2 March 2020, with her last working day on 20 March 2020.
- The claimant's name appeared in red font in Microsoft Teams, but this was a technical feature.
Timeline
-
Employment start
The claimant began employment as a teacher of computing and BTEC Quality Nominee.
-
First teaching assessment
Mr Bradley conducted a teaching assessment, noting positives and areas for improvement.
-
Claimant reports racism concerns
The claimant reported a culture of racism against ethnic minority teachers from students.
-
Incident with Mr Dongare
The claimant intervened in Mr Dongare's class, leading to a confrontation and Mr Dongare's dismissal.
-
Email exchange with Mr Fox
Mr Fox sent a pointed email about the loss of Mr Dongare.
-
Sick leave begins
The claimant commenced sick leave until 20 February 2020.
-
Return to work
The claimant returned to work after sick leave.
-
Grievances submitted
The claimant submitted three grievances regarding colleagues and treatment.
-
Resignation
The claimant tendered her resignation, with final day agreed as 17 April 2020.
-
Last working day
The claimant's last day at work; lockdown began; IT access withdrawn.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the teacher was directly discriminated against, harassed, or victimised on grounds of her sex and/or religion or belief, and whether the respondent's actions were motivated by those protected characteristics.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of direct discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
The key reason was that the evidence did not support any link between the treatment the teacher experienced and her sex or religion. The tribunal found that the conflicts with colleagues were due to role confusion and personality clashes, not protected characteristics.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Discrimination claims require evidence linking the treatment to a protected characteristic like sex or religion – workplace disputes alone are not enough.
- Role clarity is important: if your job title or responsibilities are ambiguous, it can lead to misunderstandings with colleagues that may be mistaken for discrimination.
- Technical features like red font in Microsoft Teams are unlikely to be evidence of discrimination unless there is proof of discriminatory intent.
- Resigning and claiming constructive dismissal can be risky if you cannot show the employer's conduct was fundamentally a breach of contract.
This case illustrates how workplace conflicts, even those that cause significant distress, do not automatically amount to unlawful discrimination. The teacher, who worked as a computing teacher and BTEC Quality Nominee, became embroiled in a series of disputes with colleagues after intervening in another teacher's class. She believed she was being treated unfairly because of her sex and religion, but the tribunal found no evidence to support that.
What went wrong
The teacher's perception of her role as a manager was not shared by her colleagues, leading to friction. When she reported concerns about racism from students and later intervened in a colleague's lesson, relationships soured. An email from a colleague about the loss of the teacher whose class she had interrupted was seen as pointed, but the tribunal accepted it was about the colleague's departure, not the teacher's protected characteristics. Even the red font in Microsoft Teams was a technical feature, not a targeted slight.
What the respondent did right
The employer had policies in place and attempted to manage the situation. The tribunal noted that the teacher's grievances were addressed, and her probation was extended for performance reasons, not discrimination. The employer's witnesses were found credible, and the tribunal accepted that the treatment was not related to sex or religion.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that discrimination claims require clear evidence of a link to a protected characteristic. For employers, it shows that robust management of workplace conflicts and clear role definitions can help defend against such claims. The teacher represented herself, which may have made it harder to present her case effectively.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.
Tutor unfairly dismissed after employer mistakenly accepted resignation
A tutor with three years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer wrongly believed she had resigned. The tribunal awarded £1,499.54 for breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages.