Aibu to think this is discrimination?

[RexMyDarling]

I'm a teacher in a secondary school. I changed jobs in sept to a one year contract that I was assured was just a formality (you'll be perm after that) from a perm job that was a long commute away.

I have crohns so then in January I started to have a flare up and ended up in hospital. In order to never (or unlikely to be) ill again I decided to have an ileostomy - basically my large intestine removed and a stoma put in place so I'd have a bag for the rest of my life. I wasn't forced into it, I could have struggled on but I made the decision to bite the bullet. I knew that once I'd recovered I'd be more healthy and would be able to work more.

Anyway the school has decided not to renew my contract despite the verbal promise (yes I know!!) and I am left unemployed and facing huge financial difficulties if I don't find a job. They are saying that it is because they don't want part time staff any more but we all know it's because I had from January to May off sick.

I can't get them thru the union because whilst it is blatant discrimination they have done it in a way that leaves me with no leg to stand on.

Would I be unreasonable to contact the governors and let them know the situation? Complain to them really... also the leaders of the school federation? I feel like letting every parent/teacher/kid in the school know and maybe even the press (!) but know that would be extreme. I do wonder what it says to the kids - that if you are disabled you don't deserve a chance.

I feel powerless and very angry.

What do you think?

Secondly, the employers actions are discriminatory because if the OP hadn't been ill, her contract would have been renewed. She had been told as much. I also believe your friend's situation was discriminatory too.

Discrimination is a legal term involving specific protected characteristics. A fixed term contract is just that - it can be terminated at will. We can speculate as to whether the OP's contract would have been renewed, but that's all it is - pure speculation.

My friend worked for a week and then broke her wrist and was off until her contract was terminated after a month. Also rotten luck for her, but fair enough from the employer's perspective - she was not performing her role.

If a person's contract is cut short or not renewed due to any illness then it is discrimination. From a legal perspective companies are well within their rights to do this, and I agree the OP's employers acted as most other employers would. But I don't agree that it is right or that it is not discriminatory.

You are making a moral judgment rather than a legal one. Legally the school has done nothing wrong. But even morally, I think it is entirely fair not to renew the contract of someone who has been absent for more than half of the contract period. Would you feel the same if the OP was teaching your kids in an exam year? I doubt it.

It is possible to feel sorry for the OP's circumstances whilst still thinking that the school made the right decision here.

It may be classed as elective surgery, but I very much doubt the OP was left with many other options. I struggle with the flippant use of language here. I doubt that one would refer to surgery due to cancer as 'elective' or insinuate there was any level of choice and believe me, Crohn's can be every bit as debilitating and in some cases, life threatening. The OP obviously, with hindsight, made a mistake moving to a temp contract under such circumstances, but she was assured that it was just a technicality. I may be cynical, but I think this could all have been their underhand way of getting rid of her. I agree that the company was well within their rights to act as they did. That doesn't make it right.

Some people in this thread have no idea what actually legally counts as discrimination.

Mother it's also a"flippant use of language" (to put it mildly) to call the OP's experience discrimination.

You may not like the term, but the surgery the OP had may accurately be described as elective.

And nobody is disputing that Crohns is serious, and debilitating, so that is a complete non sequitur.

Sometimes employer/employee relationships don't work out - often the best thing to do is just dust yourself down and move on, because trying to justify missing 5 months of a 1 year fixed term is never going to end well for the OP.

I just think it's really unfortunate that you get sick and needed the op whilst on a temporary contract but your employers have done nothing wrong by not renewing it. I think with being in a precarious situation with your health it was probably an unwise move move jobs if you had a previous permanent contract. I do really sypathise though as you've been through so much and now facing being unemployed. Hope you make a speedy recovery and find a new post quickly.

Young, I have to agree that I am making a moral judgment. I hate the idea that a person can be dismissed based on circumstances outside their control. The OP has taken a hugely difficult decision in order to make herself more employable and as a result of that she has lost her job. Although all completely legal and above board, I can't understand how that could ever be right. Perhaps you are right about the children sitting exams that year, it would be wrong for them to suffer. But, how would it look to a child in that school who has recently been diagnosed with Crohns and is facing the prospect of a bag to see someone else treated in this manner?

The op decided to leave a permanent job and go on to a fixed term contract. That means she had no guarantee of a job after the end of that contract.

But mother you are extrapolating most of that from the limited facts we have. The only lesson for all of the kids - Crohns or otherwise - (and indeed the rest of us!) is "don't take too much sick leave on a fixed term contract". Everything else is pure hyperbole.

I have had a hemicolectomy myself and even with chemo I didn't miss anything like 5 months of work. We only have the OP's word for some of the things you have inferred as fact and I would be interested to hear the employer's side of the story as well.

Is the job still required - it's not a redundancy?

Yes it's a fixed term contract, but if the decision not to renew was taken because of (or one of the reasons behind the decision was) because of the time off she'd had because of her disability, then it would be discrimination.

What is your health like now, and expected to be (what might be expected levels of sickness absence once you've had the op?). If the problem has now been solved and you'll be able to attend more often, it may still be unlawful.

And finally - the governors shouldn't have been involved in the decision not to renew. That should be an operational decision delegated to the head and they probably do not know anything about your situation.

Is there any evidence for claiming it's due to your sickness record? Why would the governors (or any tribunal) not take the reason, that it was felt to be a full time role, given at face value?

I don't think there are any employers that would take someone on a one year contract, see them take half of that year off (for whatever reason), and then make them permanent, is there?

Just read the bit about not wanting part-timers. They'd need to have a good objectively justified reason for that or they're going to find themselves with an indirect sex discrimination claim aside from anything else. Why do they say this is? Would you work full-time if they offered it to you?

Hope you feel a lot better op.
I think you will easily find a job in another school. My dd is a teacher and they are desperate to employ staff. You can always do supply till you get a f/t permanent job.
These jobs are never just rubber stamped after a year , you still have to apply for the job and go through the interviews etc even though you have been 'promised' the job as permanent , Apply for 'your' job op and see how you get on ...the very best of luck

Even in a secondary school the governors will definitely know - they have to sign off staffing and budget decisions months in advance.

Whilst it's not nice given your health they have done nothing wrong; you were on a fixed term contract, the 'promise of permanent' was verbal.

As you are aware staffing needs change, having PT teachers can cause a timetabling nightmare and with schools facing budget cuts the costs of a PT teacher will be a major factor

I know a few people who have had fixed term contracts not renewed.
Some of them had also been told it was their job, but really it was 'you're welcome to apply'.

Sometimes factors like pupil numbers or specific SEND funding can be factors for having someone on a fixed term contract in a school, but not the only reasons
We've had over staffing in some years because the extra in the timetable means we could half groups at gcse and do more intervention. Someone that year was on a fixed term. The contract wasn't renewed because with changing budgets we can't justify an over staffed department.

Equally, there's been fixed term ones that we thought would be renewed but then internally people changed their hours and it wasn't needed the following year.

At the end of the day it is awful that the OP has been unwell but they made the decision to leave a permanent job for a fixed term one knowing thry have a long term condition and may need time off. I think they were unwise to do that and can't be too surprised how it's turned out.

I do wonder what it says to the kids - that if you are disabled you don't deserve a chance

But what does it say to the kids when they get a new teacher in September who disappears in January for most of the rest of the year? Nothing good anyway.

Young having just re-read the OP I'm ashamed to say that you are 100% right. I have assumed many 'facts' when in actuality, very few were given. I have also made the assumption that you were speaking with no relevant experience. I apologise.

I still maintain that a person should not be dismissed due to illness, but I do concede that in a fixed term contract there was never really going to be any other outcome. And like it or not, legally the employers have done nothing wrong.

I'm chair of the personnel and finance committee at a school and all temporary posts are reviewed and agreed each year, as are all staffing needs. That is part of the strategic role of the governing body.

I don't think this is discrimination and if you told all the staff, parents, and press, most of them would side with the school.

DailyMailReadersAreThick
And it's not going to do future employment chances any help.

I know loads of people who've not had fixed term contracts renewed (Including a couple where it was they weren't a right fit for the department in different ways) but going to the press or social media in outrage isn't the way.

What BABBA said

It would be a difficult case to run. If schools did not pay sick pay (just SSP) this disruption to children's education might be reduced and things would be clearer for employees too.

There has been a huge reduction in employment tribunal cases by the way and often the employer wins. It is not the magic money tree people think it is these days.

Hey OP,

I had to skim read the rest of the thread as there are a bunch of heartless idiots on here with no experience of IBD. Have you tried posting in the CCUK group forum or the "The Crohns and Colitis Fun Support Group" on facebook? You might get some better responses and genuine help from others with IBD who have gone through the same thing. Personally I feel a verbal confirmation should hold, but you might find it hard to do so.

Those of you saying its 'elective surgery', it's not. You can quote till the cows come home, but for most of us it's painful and terrifying next step in the treatment plan put forward by our GI specialists. What is OP meant to do, wait until her bowel bursts and she is off work for years due to infection? Or worse, simply die? Honestly.

Those of you saying its 'elective surgery', it's not

Um, it is though. No matter how you feel about it, it is. If you think it isn't, you haven't understood the definition of elective surgery.

Not at all mother - I wasn't being nearly, just couldn't see the "discrimination" angle from the OP. Which isn't to say it's not a crappy situation for the OP.

It is horrible when people lose their jobs through no fault of their own but otoh if they are unable to fulfill the role, what is the employer to do for the best? The OP would have been in a much stronger position with a permanent contract, but many unscrupulous employers prefer contractors for this reason.