Court backs sacking of teacher for CV, pay misrepresentation

The court found that she knowingly misrepresented her prior employment status and previous salary, which justified her summary dismissal just two months into her probationary period at Crawford International School, where she had secured a two-year contract.

Court documents reveal Ms OA was hired in September 2018 following WhatsApp interviews conducted by a recruitment agency on behalf of the school. However, weeks into her role, students accused her of bullying and harassment, prompting an investigation.

During the probe, the school discovered discrepancies in her job application. It was discovered that at the time of recruitment, she falsely claimed to be employed at a top private school as director of student advancement and teacher of English and Literature, when in reality she had already been terminated from another prestigious school for alleged integrity issues.

The court judgment shows that the employer also discovered that Ms OA had inflated her salary with the previous employer from Sh180,000 to Sh365,000—a misrepresentation the court termed a "deal-breaker."

Its Managing Director, Jenny Coetzee, testified that Ms OA failed to disclose that she had been terminated from her immediate former job for reasons related to her competency and general conduct towards students.

Read: International School of Kenya ex-teacher sues in pay dispute

"The claimant obtained employment by deceit and the employer was within the law to terminate the employment on this ground," Justice Ndolo said, adding that dishonesty during recruitment "breaches the faith inherent in the work relationship."

Ms OA had argued that her dismissal was procedurally unfair, alleging the school shifted accusations mid-hearing from student complaints to her employment history.

However, the court noted she was given additional time to respond to new evidence and allowed representation during disciplinary hearings.

"The employer adhered to fairness. There is evidence that the claimant was issued with a show-cause notice, and when new evidence was discovered, she was given an extension of time to respond. Overall, I have no reason to fault the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings," Justice Ndolo stated, rejecting claims of defamation due to insufficient evidence.

In her claim, Ms OA argued that the whole process leading to her dismissal, and the allegations forming the basis of and the reason for the termination were false, illegal, and unfair.

She said that, though the show-cause letter contained allegations made by students against her, the disciplinary hearing concerned issues of withholding material employment records and presenting inaccurate information to the recruitment agency.

Ms OA claimed that Crawford continued to give negative references to prospective employers, causing her to lose an employment opportunity.
But the court held that misrepresentation of employment history or previous salary constitutes lawful dismissal.

Citing Section 43 of the Employment Act, which requires the employer to establish a reason that would cause a reasonable employer to terminate employment, in this case, the court found there was a valid reason to terminate the employment of Ms OA.

Justice Ndolo concluded that an employee who is on-boarded based on a fictitious salary figure may be removed from employment on this account.

The case highlights the risks of Curriculum Vitae fraud in Kenya’s competitive job market, where background checks are increasingly stringent.

→ [email protected]