Judge rules London private school discriminated against a father sacked over childcare hours while female staff left EARLY

Published 28 October 2026, 17:21

• Tribunal rules the teacher's sex 'materially influenced' Kensington Park School's decision to sack him
• Deputy head Elizabeth Emerton left at 4pm every Friday, yet only he got a letter demanding 8am starts
• Weeks before firing him for 'not working', the acting head gave him a warm Christmas card and £100 voucher

A London private school directly discriminated against a male teacher by sacking him for failing to work strict 8am-to-6pm hours due to childcare responsibilities, while female colleagues in senior roles left early without any formal enforcement, an employment tribunal has ruled.

An employment tribunal found that Kensington Park School's dismissal of Frederick Lechmere-Smith as Director of Studies was "materially influenced by his sex," upholding his claim of direct sex discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.

A remedy hearing is to be listed separately to determine compensation, including loss of earnings and injury to feelings.

Lechmere-Smith was an experienced senior educator who had held roles including Deputy Head – Director of Studies at Queen's Gate School and completed an MSc in Teaching and Learning at the University of Oxford.

He was appointed Director of Studies at Kensington Park School — a small independent co-educational London school of around 72 staff — in August 2023.

Before accepting the role, he emailed then-headmaster Stephen Mellor explaining that his childcare provision opened at 7:30am and closed at 5:45pm, meaning, in his own words, "I will be unable to be on-site from 8am until 6pm every day."

He warned he would "have no choice but to regretfully decline this incredibly exciting opportunity" if there was no flexibility.

Mellor replied that "this arrangement is not set in stone" and, after a phone call, followed up in writing saying: "I needed to reassure you that although the contractual hours are stipulated there is a professional approach to all of this… there has to be a level of understanding of personal circumstances."

Lechmere-Smith signed the contract the next day.

His start at the school was turbulent.

On his first day he learned that the outside contractor brought in to create the school timetable had not delivered, and he spent the next three days — the weekend included — putting one together himself.

To help him meet the demands of the role in those early weeks, his parents made the trip from South Africa to assist with childcare.

In mid-September the Head of Teaching and Learning went on early maternity leave, adding further duties to his workload, and later that month Mellor was suspended.

Lechmere-Smith, Deputy Head Elizabeth Emerton, and Deputy Head Sushma Bunger then shared responsibility for leading the school while a new head was being sought, with Ben Tan — the school's Business Director — becoming Acting Headmaster from October 2023.

According to the tribunal's findings, a probationary review meeting on 13 December 2023 was described in evidence as "amicable" and lasted 30 to 45 minutes.

Tan told Lechmere-Smith the purpose was simply to check on his progress.

The only issues raised were occasional lateness at Tuesday and Friday 8am briefings, an informal complaint from a colleague about an abrupt interaction, and inconsistency in signing the staff sign-in sheet.

No warnings were issued, no performance targets set, and no indication given that his job was at risk.

The tribunal noted that Tan's recorded comments at the meeting included: "People do feel you are inspirational; however, they hope the actions to be followed through. People like your attitude, being apologetic for things."

The day after that meeting, on 14 December 2023 — the last day of term — Tan personally handed Lechmere-Smith a handwritten card reading: "Thank you very much for everything. Your resilience and courage in stepping in from the start of the term. We very happy to have you joined KPS. I hope you're still excited to be on board with us for future adventures."

He also gave him a £100 John Lewis voucher; senior leaders received £100 while all other staff received £50.

Judge Green found this gesture was "inconsistent with the respondent's later assertion that serious performance concerns were already crystallising by mid-December 2023."

The pivotal act, as the tribunal identified it, came on 11 January 2024.

Tan had asked Lechmere-Smith on 9 January to supply his earlier emails with Mellor about hours.

Two days later, Tan wrote acknowledging the childcare conversations with Mellor but stating they had not resulted in any formal amendment to the contract.

He demanded that from 19 February 2024, Lechmere-Smith must "be in school at 8:00 am Monday to Friday" and "support the evening events fully as needed," giving him one month to rearrange his childcare.

Lechmere-Smith emailed the next morning asking for clarification on whether he was required on site until 6pm every day — and received no reply.

The judge found the letter made "no reference to concerns about performance, capability or conduct" and dealt "solely with contractual working hours."

Just 13 days after that letter, on 24 January 2024, Lechmere-Smith was dismissed.

Tan admitted in oral evidence that he had already decided to dismiss him at a meeting originally scheduled for 19 January — only eight days after the hours letter — but rearranged it due to an early nursery closure.

The meeting, held at around 6pm after a faculty meeting Lechmere-Smith had chaired, lasted only a few minutes.

Tan told him matters were "not working" and dismissed him with immediate effect.

The termination letter said: "after careful observation and consideration, we feel that your suitableness for the role as Director of Studies has not fitted to the School."

It offered no specifics of any performance failing, did not mention a right of appeal, and Lechmere-Smith was paid in lieu of notice and told not to return.

Judge Green found that performance was not the real reason for the dismissal, pointing to a series of inconsistencies in the school's case.

No performance concerns were raised during the autumn term; the probation meeting was framed as "just a chat"; the card and voucher were given the day after that meeting; the 11 January letter mentioned only hours; no capability process was ever started; and the dismissal meeting itself contained no reference to any performance failing.

The judge concluded: "the operational reason for the claimant's dismissal was the respondent's decision to require strict compliance with on-site working hours of 8:00am to 6:00pm and the claimant's perceived inability to meet that requirement. Any performance concerns relied upon in these proceedings were not contemporaneously raised, not operative at the time, and not the real reason for the dismissal."

The tribunal also examined a Staff Wellbeing Survey the school sought to rely on as evidence of staff complaints against Lechmere-Smith.

Judge Green found that in the version disclosed to Lechmere-Smith via a data subject access request, Emerton's name had been deleted, whereas in the version produced to the tribunal it was Emerton's name that was redacted — with the thrust of the complaint found to be against Emerton, not Lechmere-Smith.

The judge concluded "it is reasonable to infer that the removal of Ms Emerton's name from the DSAR version was to give the impression that the claimant was the sole subject of the complaint."

Tan accepted that the anonymous critical comments had never been shared with Lechmere-Smith before his dismissal, and the judge found the survey "may have been deployed retrospectively to justify a decision already taken, which materially undermines the credibility of his explanation for the dismissal."

Central to the discrimination finding was the treatment of Deputy Head Elizabeth Emerton.

Tan accepted in oral evidence that Emerton "left every day on Friday at 4pm" — two hours before the contractual close — yet faced no letter, no formal warning, and no disciplinary enforcement.

Deputy Head Sushma Bunger was also found to have left before 6pm on some days without sanction.

The tribunal found that "the claimant alone was subjected to written enforcement of the 8am–6pm hours and dismissed for issues arising from those hours."

Applying section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, Judge Green constructed a hypothetical comparator — a female senior leader with the same leadership responsibilities and childcare constraints — and found she would not have been issued the 11 January letter, required to rearrange childcare within a month, subjected to strict enforcement of hours, or dismissed.

The judge held that "the respondent's selective enforcement of the working hours, the issuing of the 11 January 2024 letter, and the decision to dismiss the claimant were materially influenced by his sex," and that the school had "not discharged its burden… to prove that sex played no role."

The claim of direct sex discrimination was found well-founded.