A recent Employment Tribunal decision has put the spotlight on the legal responsibilities of schools as employers, particularly in relation to neurodiverse staff.
The case of Wright v The Governing Body of Cardinal Newman Catholic School is a clear reminder that schools must not only recognise and accommodate the needs of employees with disabilities, but also ensure that internal processes, including grievance handling and disciplinary action, are conducted lawfully and fairly. With a substantial award of £850,000 made to the claimant, the case serves as a cautionary tale for all education providers.
Case Overview
Marcus Wright was employed as Head of Mathematics at Cardinal Newman Catholic School for over a decade. In 2017, he was diagnosed with autism and began to raise a number of grievances relating to how he was treated by colleagues and senior management.
Mr. Wright believed that his concerns stemmed from a lack of understanding of his neurodiversity and how it impacted his interactions and communication.
Despite these complaints and without sufficient attempts to address the issues raised, the school suspended Mr. Wright in 2019. He was later dismissed on the grounds of an alleged breakdown in working relationships. However, the Tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair and upheld claims for discrimination arising from disability and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
The Tribunal held that the school had failed to take adequate steps to support Mr. Wright following his diagnosis. His behaviours, which included persistent pursuit of his grievances, were characteristic of his autism but were misinterpreted by the school as unreasonable conduct. The decision highlighted that the school had not made reasonable adjustments, nor had it demonstrated an informed understanding of how Mr Wright’s condition might affect his approach to conflict resolution and professional communication.
What this means for schools
This case offers a number of important lessons for schools and other educational institutions. Firstly, the Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for staff with disabilities. For neurodivergent employees, these adjustments might include clearer communication, changes in how feedback is delivered, or support in managing workplace interactions. It is not enough to treat all staff the same; an inclusive approach requires an appreciation of individual needs.
Secondly, schools should ensure that grievance procedures are approached with care, particularly where an employee has disclosed a disability. A pattern of persistent complaints may not necessarily indicate misconduct or incompatibility. In Mr. Wright’s case, his approach to raising issues was shaped by his autism – a factor the school failed to account for in its disciplinary decision-making.
Thirdly, the Tribunal’s findings emphasise the risks of treating disabled staff less favourably after they raise concerns about discrimination. Successful claims for victimisation (where an employee is found to have suffered a detriment for asserting their rights) can significantly increase compensation awards.
Educational considerations
Many schools rightly focus on creating inclusive learning environments for students, yet this must be mirrored in how staff are treated. Staff wellbeing and inclusion are essential not only for compliance with legal duties but also for creating a supportive and effective school culture. The Wright case is a reminder that inclusion should be embedded at all levels of an institution, from the classroom to the staffroom.
Staff who are neurodiverse bring valuable perspectives and skills to education. However, success, depends on environments that understand and accommodate differences. Fostering such an environment begins with awareness, proactive management, and a willingness to adapt.
Conclusion
The outcome in Wright v Cardinal Newman Catholic School should prompt schools to review their policies and practices when it comes to supporting neurodiverse staff. Employment decisions must be based on informed, reasonable assessments, not assumptions about behaviour or capability. Training for leadership teams, clear internal procedures, and early engagement with occupational health and legal advisors can all help schools to meet their legal obligations and avoid costly disputes.
Key Contact
Claire Brook
Employment Law Partner
Claire advises a wide range of employers on all aspects of employment law, from recruitment and employment, through to complex dismissals and representation at employment tribunals.
