07a - Discrimination Policy Only Applies One Way? Bury College’s Handling of Student Misconduct Questioned at Tribunal

During the Employment Tribunal brought against Bury College in May 2025, the College’s application of its own Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Policy came under sharp scrutiny.

Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), was cross-examined on the policy’s commitments. She confirmed that the College’s EDI Policy includes the following explicit obligations:

  • The College “opposes all forms of discrimination.”

  • “Students and staff must be protected from discrimination.”

  • The College “will challenge all forms of discrimination.”

  • “Acts of discrimination will be treated as a serious disciplinary offence.”

  • “Employees and students will be liable for disciplinary action” in cases of discriminatory behaviour.

Yet despite these firm commitments, Student B, who made the complaint against the teacher, was found to have voiced discriminatory remarks about the teacher himself. During the investigation and later at Tribunal, it was revealed that Student B had expressed negative views and assumptions based on the teacher’s age and perceived mental health.

The College admitted that Student B was “spoken to” about her comments, but no disciplinary action was taken. There is no record that her behaviour was logged as a formal concern, challenged under the EDI Policy, or escalated.

This disparity raises serious questions about double standards in policy enforcement. If, as Sarah Walton agreed, the College treats any act of discrimination as a “serious disciplinary offence”, then why was discriminatory behaviour against a member of staff not treated seriously at all?

By not holding Student B to the same standards, Bury College risked breaching its own stated commitments to equality and may have contributed to the unjust treatment of the teacher at the centre of this case.

What This Means for the Judge

This inconsistency in applying the College’s own policies is a key issue for the Employment Tribunal judge to consider. One of the central tests for procedural fairness is whether an employer has applied rules and standards consistently.

The Tribunal judge will have to assess:

  • Whether the College’s failure to discipline Student B for discriminatory behaviour while simultaneously disciplining the teacher reflects inconsistent enforcement.

  • Whether this inconsistency undermines the credibility and impartiality of the investigation and disciplinary process.

  • Whether the College’s selective use of its own EDI Policy, quoted at length to justify the teacher’s dismissal, but ignored when applied to others, supports the Claimant’s argument that he was treated unfairly.

In essence, the judge must decide whether the College acted in good faith, or whether it applied its own policies selectively and prejudicially to secure a predetermined outcome.

The answer to that question could determine the outcome of the entire case.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Headlines: What the Tribunal Really Showed About Bury College’s Case

Recent local coverage of the unfair dismissal tribunal involving a Bury College lecturer painted a simplified picture: a teacher used the “R-word” in class, the College acted, and a tribunal found the dismissal unfair only because of procedural flaws. But the deeper reality is more complex and far more troubling for the College’s credibility. [original article here:  Bury Times ]   Shifting Student Accounts The central complaint was not consistent. The initial allegation from Student B was that the maths lecturer had called the entire class “retards.” Later, she changed her account to say he had called just her the word. Still later, the complaint shifted again; now alleging he had called a different student, and then two students. Such shifting accounts should have raised immediate questions about reliability. Instead, the College treated the complaint as fact. Credibility of the Complaint Serious questions also arise about the credibility of the original complaint....
Read more

38 - Bury College Principal Endorses DSL’s Use of the Word “Retard”

Bury College Principal, Charlie Deane, has openly supported the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), Sarah Walton, after she repeated the word “retard” directly to a student with a learning disability. This position is remarkable given the College’s own characterisation of the word. In formal proceedings, the College has described “retard” as “offensive,” “derogatory,” “inappropriate,” “bullying,” “harassing,” “alienating,” “hateful,” “unacceptable,” “not used in society,” “a hate crime,” “a disgusting word,” and “linked to a protected characteristic.” The College also acknowledged that its use would cause damage to a student. Despite this, when Walton repeated the word to a vulnerable learner, she faced no sanction, no criticism, and was instead fully supported by Deane. By contrast, another member of staff who repeated the word in a classroom context was vilified and dismissed. Deane’s backing of Walton exposes a troubling double standard. If the word is so damaging tha...
Read more

08 - Safeguarding Lead at Bury College Repeated Harmful Language to Student, Tribunal Hears

The Designated Safeguarding Lead at Bury College admitted to repeating a derogatory slur to a vulnerable student, despite knowing it could cause harm, according to evidence heard at a recent employment tribunal. Sarah Walton, the College's safeguarding lead, made the admission under cross-examination while giving evidence in a three-day hearing concerning the dismissal of a former staff member. The former employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly using the word "retard" in a classroom context. Ms Walton told the tribunal that she repeated the slur during a phone call with Student A, a student with a recognised learning disability, so the student would "know exactly what word" she was referring to. When pressed, she accepted that her use of the word could cause the same harm as when the dismissed teacher had used it. However, unlike the Claimant, no disciplinary action was taken against Ms Walton. Her conduct was not investigated, cri...
Read more