And speaking of school day traumas brings me neatly to the curious case of Smith v Alpha Plus Group Limited 2024.

Mr Smith was employed by Alpha Plus Group Limited (APGL) from September 2006 until his dismissal in 2022. APGL operates a number of independent schools across the UK, including Wetherby Prep School for boys, where Mr Smith was based.

From September 2019, Mr Smith was employed as a floating teacher; a role which involved teaching certain subjects across different year groups and providing small group interventions as required, as well as covering for absent staff.

In January 2020, Mr Smith was absent from work due to mental health issues, which he believed were caused by a personal relationship breakdown. He was absent for approximately 18 days between January and March 2020.

In March 2020, he travelled to Australia to visit his family. Shortly afterwards, the Covid-19 pandemic escalated, international borders were closed, and the UK entered its first national lockdown. Although school staff were expected to return in June 2020, Mr Smith was permitted to remain in Australia until September to support his mental health, delivering online learning from there.

During this time, Mr Smith was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressive features. The Employment Tribunal noted that “he was managed very supportively for most of the time”, with three occupational health reports conducted between 2020 and 2021.

In February 2022, two staff members reported that Mr Smith had fallen asleep in class. The following day, he texted the deputy head/designated safeguarding lead to say that he had woken with a fever and tested positive for Covid. When Mr Smith returned in March, the deputy head raised the allegation that he had been asleep in class. Mr Smith denied this, stating that he had only been resting his eyes. Three days later, he was off sick again for two days, then again on 14 March 2022.

On 15 March 2022, Mr Smith attended a meeting with the deputy head, the head of HR, and an HR officer acting as notetaker. Mr Smith was not informed in advance of the meeting or its purpose. He was also not told that it was an investigatory meeting, nor that he was entitled to be accompanied.

The head of HR stated that a range of topics would be discussed, including Mr Smith’s failure to report his absences on time and the allegation that he had fallen asleep in class. When Mr Smith queried the lack of notice for the meeting, he was told that notice was not required as it was not considered a formal meeting.

The deputy head emphasised that falling asleep in class was unacceptable, noting that this had happened before. She also stressed that Mr Smith was not adhering to the school’s absence policy, which required staff to notify the school by 7.30am if they were unable to attend work. Several examples were given where Mr Smith had failed to call in when arriving late.

On 25 March 2022, Mr Smith did not attend work and failed to notify the school. The deputy head emailed him, and a few hours later received a response from Mr Smith stating that he had been unwell all day and had only just managed to get up. In a routine meeting a month later, Mr Smith explained that that absence was due to a build-up of exhaustion and stress, adding that on waking up, he thought “What’s the point?” before falling back asleep.

The deputy head’s investigation report (11 May 2022) outlined the allegations of falling asleep on duty, persistent failure to follow absence reporting procedures, and broader concerns regarding his capability in light of the health and behavioural issues affecting his performance over recent years.

On 16 May 2022, Mr Smith was invited to a formal capability meeting to assess his ability to fulfil his role or whether further support was possible. He was also informed of his right to be accompanied by a colleague or a trade union representative and warned that dismissal was a possible outcome.

The meeting was postponed several times, with Mr Smith citing health reasons. It was eventually scheduled for 1 July, when his request to postpone again was refused. The meeting proceeded in his absence, and he was dismissed. Mr Smith appealed the decision, which was ultimately rejected.

Mr Smith then filed claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination to the ET.

The claim was successful. The ET found that Mr Smith’s dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair, as APGL failed to follow any proper capability, absence, or disciplinary process before terminating his employment. He was not given adequate opportunity to respond to the investigation report, and the employer “jumped straight to dismissal” without implementing supportive measures or review stages. The ET also held that the school failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability. These procedural failings and refusals directly disadvantaged him and contributed to both the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination findings.

The ET awarded Mr Smith a compensation award of £168,441.30.

This case is important because it reinforces that employers must strictly follow fair procedures and make reasonable adjustments when managing staff with health conditions or disabilities. The ET’s decision shows that skipping proper capability or disciplinary processes, refusing flexible accommodations such as hearing postponements or support companions, and failing to give employees a genuine chance to respond can turn an already difficult employment situation into a costly legal loss. For employers, the outcome is a reminder that process matters as much as substance, and that neglecting it can lead to substantial compensation awards, reputational damage, and a finding of discrimination even where performance concerns are genuine.