25 - Tribunal Judge Dismisses Baseless Claim That 'Student A' Left College Because of Teacher’s Words

During the Bury College Employment Tribunal, the Respondent attempted to draw a direct line between the Claimant’s use of the word “retard” in a classroom exchange and the departure of Student A from college. The implication? That the teacher’s words had such an impact that Student A felt compelled to leave the institution altogether.

But the evidence didn’t support it, and the Tribunal Judge made that clear.

The Attempt to Link Departure to the Incident

The incident in question occurred in early September 2023. Student A, after being prompted to reflect on his behaviour, replied to the teacher with “You’re a retard.” The teacher repeated the word back as a question, and the class moved on without any further disruption from the student. Later, Student A left college, not as a result of any complaint, but because he had secured employment.

At tribunal, the Respondent sought to imply that the Claimant’s conduct contributed to Student A’s departure, a line of reasoning that, if accepted, could have bolstered their case by adding implied harm where none had been established.

However, no evidence was presented to substantiate this link. There were no witness statements from Student A. No documentation. No timeline suggesting that the classroom exchange prompted any concern or distress that could have led to his decision to leave.

Judicial Intervention

The Tribunal Judge intervened firmly, stating that there was no evidence to suggest that the Claimant’s words caused Student A to leave college. The judge’s rejection of this speculative argument reaffirmed an essential principle of employment justice: that allegations must be based on verifiable facts, not assumptions or inferences made after the fact to support a disciplinary decision.

Why It Matters

The Respondent’s attempt to imply harm without foundation reflects a broader theme in this case, one that has emerged repeatedly throughout tribunal proceedings:

  • Unsubstantiated assumptions replacing factual evidence.

  • Retrospective justifications made to support decisions already taken.

  • And speculative harm cited to frame the Claimant’s actions as more serious than proven.

This moment reinforces that employers cannot rely on hypothetical outcomes or subjective narratives to justify disciplinary action or to retroactively validate a dismissal. If harm is alleged, it must be evidenced. If behaviour is cited as the cause of a student's departure, the employer must show direct proof, not assumptions.

In this instance, the College had no such proof, and the Judge’s intervention served as a reminder that tribunals will not tolerate baseless claims dressed up as causation.

The Takeaway

This episode adds to the growing list of concerns about the College’s approach: Was this process based on actual facts and reasoned investigation, or was it shaped by inference, double standards, and a need to defend a decision already made?

Only the Judge’s final ruling will determine whether procedural and substantive fairness were upheld. But what’s increasingly clear is that factual rigour, not assumptions, must be the foundation of any fair disciplinary process.

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