The Claimant worked as a teacher and was dismissed for gross misconduct. He brought a claim concerning the disciplinary process pursued against him and his subsequent dismissal – which he contended amounted to disability discrimination or harassment and/or victimisation – and a claim that the refusal to consider him for his old position amounted to an act of victimisation. The ET accepted that the Claimant had suffered from an impairment, namely dyslexia, but concluded that he was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 ("EqA 2010"), and it rejected his claims of victimisation and unfair dismissal. The Claimant appealed in relation to (1) the ET's finding that he was not a disabled person for the purposes of the EqA 2010, (2) the ET's finding on victimisation, specifically in respect of the failure to afford him a hearing of his appeal, and (3) the ET's rejection of his unfair dismissal claim.

The EAT held that, on each of the points raised, it was satisfied that the ET had made no error of law and had reached decisions that were open to it on the evidence.