The Claimant was disabled by reference to autism spectrum disorder, dyslexia and other matters. She was dismissed after it was found that she had breached professional boundaries, and that the Respondent could not be confident that she would not repeat that conduct if she was not dismissed. The ET found that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed. It also dismissed her claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 in relation to the dismissal because it found the justification defence in section 15(1)(b) to be made out. However, the ET found that a statement by the Respondent that it was a matter of serious concern that the Claimant had chosen to withhold her autism through “masking” throughout much of her employment, potentially putting vulnerable children at risk, violated her dignity. Both Claimant and Respondent appealed.

The EAT dismissed both appeals. The ET properly concluded that the Respondent reasonably formed the view that the Claimant had breached professional boundaries, and that it could not be confident that she would not repeat that conduct if she was not dismissed. In respect of the cross-appeal, the ET’s reasons conveyed why it considered that the Claimant’s view that this statement violated her dignity was, in all the circumstances, reasonably held. That conclusion could also not be said to be perverse.