A black teaching assistant has won a case of racial discrimination after she was banned from working from home during the Covid-19 pandemic while her white colleague was allowed to do so.
Abi Balogun showed Cubitt Town Infants’ School in London a letter saying her young son, who was battling cancer and vulnerable, should screen at home during the pandemic.
Balogun told an employment tribunal that she was explaining to infant school vice president Emmy Alcock that she needed to ‘do what’s right for my family’ and avoid a possible Covid infection.
But Mrs. Alcock ordered her to attend and threatened her without pay.
And when Balogun questioned why a white, less-skilled assistant was allowed to work from home, the deputy principal terminated her contract at the Isle of Dog school.
The assistant with special needs and disabilities is queuing up to receive compensation after she successfully sued the school for racial discrimination and violence.
Concerned Abi Balogun told Cubitt Town Infants’ School (pictured) executives that she had to ‘do what’s right for my family’ and stay home when her little son was battling cancer and vulnerable
An East London Employment Tribunal heard how Balogun’s son was diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment in January 2021.
That was then Britain was thrown out in its third lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Ms Balogun, who was employed by an agency, Teaching Personnel Limited, as a teaching assistant at the school, was told that it would be “contactless” work and would prepare work packages in a classroom.
Earlier, she had been allowed by the school to stay home while the ‘foreclosure council for her son was in place’.
But the deputy chief, Mrs. Alcock, told the mother of two, the court heard, that the government’s guidance only required that the vulnerable person should protect himself and that she should get to work.
A female assistant, named only as ‘LC’, performed a similar role as Mrs Balogun and was allowed to work from home from January 2021 when her mother was a vulnerable person and shielded.
On January 28, Balogun sent a text message to Mrs. Alcock: ‘Hi Emmy, I have made a conscious decision to do the right thing for my family and stay home during the lockdown.
“It is impossible to work in isolation in school. The staff is everywhere and has come to talk to me without covering my face.
‘It’s not a risk I’m willing to take. Students have also approached me to show me their work and I will not reject them.
‘My kids also went to school while I was at work, which defeats the purpose.’
Mrs Alcock replied: ‘Hi Abi, I understand your concerns and why you want to stay home.
‘Since the foreclosure document is for your son and not yourself, you are still expected to show up for work.
‘All staff except those who are themselves clinically extremely vulnerable are expected to attend work. This is the guide from DfE. ‘
The court heard Balogun pointed out Ms. Alcock’s contradiction when LC was allowed to work remotely.
She asked, ‘As far as I know, a specific colleague is not clinically vulnerable but lives with a family member who is and screens, why are they not expected to go to work, on the other hand should I?’
Ms Alcock claimed she had ‘done everything’ she could, but said she ‘can not discuss other employees’ arrangements’ as they are’ confidential ‘.
The court also heard that school principal Robyn Bruce ‘in hindsight’ thought Alcock should have explained why another person was allowed to WFH.
Mrs Balogun then took up the Gender Equality Act and Mrs Alcock terminated her contract an hour later and notified the agency through which she was employed.
The court also heard that school principal Robyn Bruce (pictured) ‘in hindsight’ thought that Mrs Alcock should have explained why another person was allowed to WFH
In court, Ms. Bruce argued that Balogun was not comparable to LC and that the mother of a child with cancer could not have worked externally, but the panel found that this was not true.
The court concluded: ‘The school had not given it much thought before Mrs Balogun’s services dismissed Mrs Alcock on how she could be received by working from home.
‘It was in stark contrast to LC who was allowed to work from home presumably with the necessary software for it.
Ms Balogun had a good work record and there were no performance or disciplinary issues with her.
“The court was not convinced that the explanation given by the school during the hearing was reasonable as to why she could not work from home, especially given her good work history, good qualifications and adaptable experience.
“We were confused by Mrs Alcock’s actions when it became clear to us that she was aware that Mrs Balogun was a single mother caring for two children, one of whom was suffering from cancer and was clinically vulnerable.”
The panel said, “we were not happy” with the school’s explanation of her firing, as the only difference was race.
Ms Balogun, who worked at the school for a year, won allegations of racial discrimination and victim and will be awarded compensation at a later date.
She lost an unreasonable dismissal claim as she was not directly employed at the school but through an agency.
