Court Dismisses Teacher's Discrimination Lawsuit Against British School

The Batllia has dismissed in full a lawsuit filed by a teacher at British College Overseas SL, who claimed her dismissal was discriminatory based on her origin and birthplace, in violation of Article 6 of the Constitution.

The court ruled that no discrimination was proven, nor were there any formal shortcomings in the contract termination, which took effect on 30 June 2023 as a non-causal dismissal. The teacher, who had worked at the school since September 2021 as a reception tutor, argued that the real reason for not renewing her contract was a strategic decision by the school board to hire only British nationals or native speakers as teachers. This was referenced in an initial recommendation letter from the director dated 24 March 2023, which stated that the contract end "is due to a strategic decision by the school board to move towards having only British or native speakers in the role of teachers."

During the trial, however, the director retracted the statement, describing it as a "manifest and hasty error" in the letter's drafting. He insisted the decision was not based on discriminatory criteria. The Batllia accepted this explanation, finding that the letter's wording alone did not prove the dismissal stemmed from the worker's nationality or origin, and thus did not constitute a constitutional breach.

The court also rejected the teacher's subsidiary claims, which sought to declare the dismissal unfair due to alleged failures in labour relations law formalities, including notice periods and payments. It noted she had been informed in advance that her employment would end with the 2022-2023 school year, and the non-causal dismissal met all legal requirements. The judge further ruled that she had already taken her proportional vacation entitlement, with no outstanding amounts due, and upheld the validity of the settlement payment and economic compensation despite her argument that they were late.

The teacher had primarily sought nullification of the dismissal, with options for reinstatement or back pay, and secondarily a 25% increased indemnity for unfair dismissal, plus vacation pay and interest. All claims were denied at first instance.

The resolution, issued on 8 January 2026 and notified the following day, prompted an appeal to the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice. In it, the teacher contends there was an error in assessing the documentary and testimonial evidence, maintaining that the recommendation letter reveals the true business motive. The case, filed in July 2023 and heard in February 2024, now proceeds to second instance, where the higher court will review the evidence interpretation and whether the reference to teachers' linguistic profiles holds legal weight.