A recent High Court ruling illustrates that immediately suspending an employee accused of serious misconduct without establishing the facts can lead to a claim for breach of contract (Agoreyo v London Borough of Lambeth)
Ms Agoreyo, a teacher, was accused of three instances of using unreasonable force towards two children in her class who were known to exhibit challenging behaviour.
Ms Agoreyo was suspended and received a letter stating that her suspension was a ‘neutral act’ and not a disciplinary sanction. The letter also indicated that the purpose of the suspension was to allow an investigation to be conducted fairly.
The teacher brought a claim in the County Court alleging that the Council had breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence by suspending her and therefore she sought damages as compensation.
A subsequent appeal hearing in the High Court held that Ms Agoreyo’s suspension was largely a knee-jerk reaction and, therefore, amounted to a breach of trust and confidence. The High Court determined that suspension was not a neutral act and should not be considered a ‘routine response’ to the need to investigate.
In coming to this conclusion, the High Court considered the following issues:
The teacher was not asked for her version of events before being suspended;
the headteacher’s initial investigation concluding that previous allegations were unfounded was overlooked;
no alternatives to suspension were considered; and
no explanation was given as to why an investigation could not be carried out fairly without the employee being suspended.
It is important for schools to note that, whilst suspension should not be the automatic default position where serious allegations are made, it may still be appropriate in some circumstances. It will be essential to demonstrate that reasonable alternatives to suspension have been considered and justify why they may not be appropriate. Schools are therefore encouraged to seek professional HR advice prior to employee suspensions.
