The High Court has been asked to overturn a disciplinary finding against a teacher over an incident in which he allegedly called a male student “a little bitch”.
Pierce Dillon (58) claims the fee-paying Catholic University School (CUS) in Leeson Street, Dublin, breached fair procedures in how it handled the complaint of inappropriate behaviour brought against him in 2014 by the teenage boy’s parents.
The case was previously rejected by the High Court’s Mr Justice Michael Twomey but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision last August and sent the case back for a re-hearing in the High Court.
That opened on Tuesday before Ms Justice Deirdre Murphy.
Mr Dillon, a teacher for 34 years, went on sick leave following the alleged disciplinary process, later resigned from the CUS on medical advice, and has had serious difficulty finding another job since, the court heard.
He says the entire event has had a huge effect on his career and caused serious distress.
He has taken a separate constructive dismissal case which is on hold pending the High Court case.
The case centres on a claim by the student that, after he was late on May 8th 2014 for Mr Dillon’s class due to talking to another teacher, Mr Dillon told him he was continually disrupting the class, always moaning and was a “little bitch”.
The student also claimed, after telling Mr Dillon the following day he could not attend class due to a school sports’ commitment, he was told he would be kicked out of class for three weeks.
Final written warning
The boy alleged he told Mr Dillon he was not allowed call him a “little bitch”.
Mr Dillon denied he ever said it or that his behaviour was inappropriate.
A disciplinary process was carried out by the school board and Mr Dillon was issued in April 2015 with a final written warning which would stay active for 12 months.
In the previous High Court hearing, the judge found, because the warning had expired, the proceedings were moot (pointless).
Opening the rehearing, Brian Murray SC, for Mr Dillon, said the final written warning was disproportionate, the procedures adopted by the school board were flawed, breached his client’s rights and were contrary to procedures introduced for school disciplinary matters in 2009.
A meeting set up to look at the parents complaint was not a proper disciplinary meeting, counsel said. Mr Dillon was never given advance notice of what the complaint against him was or any opportunity to challenge the alleged evidence of the boy or of his parents.
Only one other boy out of a class of 23 or 24 heard the alleged “little bitch” remark, it was claimed. That boy did not give evidence to the disciplinary hearing and Mr Dillon’s side was given no opportunity to challenge his statement.
The school board denies his claims, including the sanction was disproportionate. It says it implemented the appropriate procedure and Mr Dillon was treated fairly.
The case continues.