OFSTED Faces Employment Appeal Tribunal Setback Over Disability Dismissal Case
OFSTED's dismissal of an employee after cancer treatment has been challenged, with the Employment Appeal Tribunal finding significant flaws in the original tribunal's decision.
• public
Tribunal Overturns Original Ruling in OFSTED Dismissal Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found significant failings in an earlier Employment Tribunal's decision concerning OFSTED, impacting a case involving disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The appeal, brought by Ms R Phullar, has succeeded on multiple grounds, leading to the original judgment being set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh hearing.
Key Issues and Tribunal's Errors
Ms Phullar, an Early Years Regulatory Inspector, was dismissed on grounds of capability following surgery for cancer. She had returned to work on reduced hours and duties. The original tribunal had dismissed her claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability, although it upheld some complaints regarding OFSTED's failure to make reasonable adjustments.
However, the EAT identified that the original tribunal had applied the wrong legal test when considering the section 15 Equality Act 2010 complaint, relating to discrimination arising from disability. OFSTED itself conceded this error. Furthermore, the EAT found a "paucity of fact-finding" and insufficient reasons provided by the original tribunal to explain its conclusions. This, coupled with some apparent conflicting findings, led to both Ms Phullar's appeal and OFSTED's cross-appeal succeeding in part.
Failures in Reasonable Adjustment Assessment
Specific criticisms were levelled at the original tribunal's handling of reasonable adjustment claims. The EAT noted that the tribunal failed to adequately explain why certain adjustments, recommended by Access to Work, would not have avoided the claimant's disadvantages. Similarly, its conclusions on auxiliary aids were found to be unsupported by reasoning.
The tribunal's decision on alternative roles was also criticised for being inconsistent with its earlier finding of "no meaningful consideration of alternative redeployment." The EAT highlighted that the tribunal had not properly explained how its findings on various procedural issues, medical investigations, and alternative employment options led to the conclusion that the dismissal was fair.
Remittal for Fresh Hearing
His Honour Judge Auerbach stated that the original tribunal's decision was "so extensively flawed" and lacked sufficient fact-finding that the appropriate course was to remit the matters for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted tribunal. Key findings, such as OFSTED's knowledge of Ms Phullar's disability and disadvantage, will stand. However, the fairness of the dismissal and the Equality Act complaints will be re-examined.
This outcome underscores the importance of thorough fact-finding, robust reasoning, and correct application of the law in employment tribunal proceedings, particularly in cases involving disability.
Read the entire judgment here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/696782e206fabb02127034c5/Ms_R._Phullar_v_OFSTED__2026__EAT_10.pdf
