Teacher who called suicidal student ‘selfish’ awarded £38,000 unfair dismissal after appeal

A Loughborough University professor, sacked after mishandling a student self-harm incident, has been awarded £38,645.08 for unfair dismissal by a Leicester Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The decision followed the successful appeal of the court’s initial decision in 2022 to dismiss the speaker’s claim.

The dispute arose in November 2018, when a student committed an act of self-harm and required hospital treatment. Dr. Leaney, acting as director of university halls, spoke to the student and others in neighboring accommodation. However, a staff member at the University Health Center later raised concerns with Leaney’s line manager, Dr. Alonso, about his handling of the situation in a “poorly judged and naive” manner.

Council broker awarded £15k in court after employer’s insistence on post-cancer medical assessment delayed return to work

Teacher with autism who made serial complaints was unfairly dismissed, court rules

Disabled paralegal fired for taking sick leave and asking for unpaid wages wins £109k in court

After an investigation, Leaney filed a complaint against his manager, alleging mistreatment during the process. However, it was concluded that Alonso was “within his right to investigate the events”. Leaney appealed this finding and wanted to transform the informal complaint against his supervisor into a formal complaint investigation.

Employment judge Adkinson ruled that the university’s failure to pursue Leaney’s appeal was unjustified and a significant factor in his decision to leave his role, stating: “At no time was there reasonable or adequate cause for not following the prescribed procedure. Leaney would not have retired when he did if not for the violations.” The request for unfair dismissal was accepted.

Bottom

Leaney began working at Loughborough University in 1979 as a research assistant, becoming a professor in 1982. He reduced his workload in 2019 as he approached retirement, with his title changing to university professor. He also served as director of two residence halls until his resignation from the position in December 2019.

On 10 November 2018, a student living at Hazlerigg Rutland Hall, known as Student X, committed an act of self-harm and was hospitalised. Upon learning of the incident, Leaney informed his direct manager, Alonso.

On November 11, students from the apartment where Student X lived and the apartment opposite contacted Leaney about the incident. He arranged a meeting with them on November 19, 2018, first meeting with Student X individually before meeting with the other students. A member of the University Health Center subsequently emailed Alonso with the subject line ‘Director’s Concerns’ on November 23.

According to the email, Leaney told Student X that they should apologize to their roommates for the “concern” caused and labeled the student “selfish.” He also gave student

Additionally, other students were encouraged to express their feelings about the self-harm incident, and Student X was asked if he would like to change classes. Specific details of Student X’s actions were disclosed to the group, which made the students uncomfortable. Student X expressed feeling punished and “felt helpless and afraid that (his) course would be closed.”

Two days later, Alonso wrote to Mr Cox-Stone, the university’s HR adviser, saying he would like to deal with the matter in accordance with disciplinary policies. On November 26, Alonso approached Angela Truby, head of student services operations, and asked her to investigate.

The judge noted that, “for reasons that are unclear, it was not until December 4, 2018 that Dr. Alonso told Dr. Leaney that the disciplinary process had begun and that Ms. Truby was investigating.” Truby met with Leaney on December 19, 2018. She prepared her report and sent it to Alonso on December 20, 2018. It said: “Holding an open session to reprimand a suicidal, self-harming, traumatized person was foolish and naive. However, I don’t believe it was malicious; it was an approach based (on) old-fashioned thinking (…) I believe it was well intentioned and an attempt to support the entire apartment, but it demonstrated a real lack of understanding of what (Student X) was experiencing (…)”

On January 11, 2019, Alonso sent the report to Leaney and said he reviewed it and “does not think there is a formal case to answer.” However, he said, “the report concerns me in terms of your judgment in this situation. I would like to meet with you next week to explain this in more detail.” The judge said it was “apparent to the reasonable reader that the disciplinary process would not proceed, but Dr. Alonso had concerns to be resolved informally.”

On January 15, Leaney met with Vice-Chancellor Professor Allison to express his concerns about how he perceived Alonso was treating him. He said he found the investigative report’s conclusion “slanderous, deeply offensive to me and could not be further from the truth.”

Leaney then filed an informal complaint against Alonso. He stressed that “at no point were the accusations made against him and he did not know what the accusations against him were.” He also emphasized that he had concerns about the future of his work once the report was filed.

Richard Taylor, Chief Operating Officer, has appointed Chris Euden, London Chief Operating Officer, to carry out the first phase of the investigation into the complaint. Euden’s report concluded that Alonso was “well within his rights to investigate the events” in the student lounge, but accepted that “some aspects of the proceedings could be seen as incomplete or confusing”.

He also concluded that Alonso’s response after receiving the report (that he still wanted to meet Leaney) could well have left Leaney wondering what the outcome would be. He recommended “a professionally mediated meeting between (Alonso and Leaney) to restart the relationship.” Alonso agreed to this, but Leaney did not.

On 6 March 2019, Leaney lodged an appeal against the outcome of the complaint (although “strictly (…) this was not an appeal but a request for Mr Euden’s informal outcome to proceed to a formal investigation of the complaint and for Mr. Euden’s report”).

He said, “I still don’t know what specifically I did wrong.”

The university appointed Mr. Vipin Ahlawat, supported by Carolyn Kenney of HR, to lead the formal investigation. Ahlawat also produced a report. Taylor attempted to push for a mediated meeting between Leaney and Alonso, telling Leaney on May 22, 2020: “This is the recommendation of two reports, including the formal complaint. While other routes may be open to you, the university is under no obligation to wait for them.”

The matter was escalated to Allison and the Director of People and Organizational Development, Ms. MacKinlay. MacKinlay told the court she tried to convene an appeal panel, but the judge said there was “no evidence that any steps have been taken to formally organize an appeal panel”.

On June 7, 2019, Leaney resigned as director. He said: “Since lodging my appeal, I have been consistent in explaining the need for my appeal to proceed. Today it has been 21 days and the clear situation is that an appeal panel has not been convened, despite my reasonable expectations.” As the appeal ultimately stalled and bore no fruit, Leaney resigned from his position at the university on September 28, 2020.

He said: “After everything I had been through, I felt devoid of any support from my employer and, after 40 years of successfully working with students and teaching colleagues, I lost trust in my employer (…) The university has never made no real effort to resolve the issues I was trying to raise and, in fact, blocked me at every possible stage, causing the matter to drag on for a prolonged period of time.”

Judge’s comments

Employment Judge Adkinson held that “Mr Taylor decided that he would not allow an appeal to proceed”, demonstrated by “his insistence on mediation, assertion that Dr Leaney was being potentially vexatious with Dr ordering a panel of appeal is called.” Ultimately, he “refused” to proceed with the appeal.

Furthermore, it was held that MacKinlay did not take steps to convene an appeal panel and that, ultimately, “the university acted as it did to impede Dr. Leaney’s right to appeal against the outcome of the complaint set out in Mr. Leaney’s report.” Ahlawat.”

“By June 29, 2020, the university had at least handled one matter that was likely to destroy or seriously harm trust. In short, it not only ignored its own procedures in relation to the complaints, but refused to move forward with a legitimate and permissible appeal,” said the judge.

“Mr Taylor made decisions about the outcome of the complaint that he had no power to make, insisted on mediation that he had no power to insist on, and threatened disciplinary proceedings if Dr Leaney did not follow the instructions he now had the power to give.

“Ms MacKinlay refused to pursue the appeal and put her name on a letter whose contents were factually inaccurate about Dr Leaney and which should never have been written. In effect, they forced Dr. Leaney to withdraw his appeal (…) There is no reasonable or adequate cause for any of this because it is clearly contrary to the university’s own regulations and there is no other reason to depart from them on this occasion. ”

The judge accepted that Leaney would not have resigned at this time if there had not been problems with his complaint and attempted appeal.

Lawyer’s comments

George Miller, employment lawyer at Roythornes, said: “This is another example of a successful claim that could have been avoided entirely if the employer had just followed its own policies.

“The employer’s complaints policy said they should hear an appeal even if they felt there was no merit to it. If they felt so strongly, the employer should have used the appeal process as an opportunity to reaffirm its position and deal with any new arguments raised by the employee, rather than exposing itself to the risk of a constructive dismissal claim by failing to negotiate with it completely.

He added that “the employer will likely have incurred a significant amount in legal fees over a four-year saga, including two court hearings and one appeal court hearing” and that “it would be very surprising if there was not an opportunity to the employer resolves the complaint at a much earlier stage and, potentially, for lower remuneration than was ultimately awarded to the employee”.

Miller concluded: “When both parties can be realistic and reach an agreement, early resolution of complaints is generally in everyone’s best interest – except perhaps the lawyers.”

For more employment law resources, visit the CIPD website