Case 1304508/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Agbodo v University College of Birmingham — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304508/2021
- Decision date
- 30 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs S Bannister, Ms S Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Agbodo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham, sitting on 23 to 26 October 2023 before Employment Judge Meichen, Mrs S Bannister and Ms S Campbell, the tribunal heard Mr A Agbodo's claims against the University College of Birmingham. The tribunal found that the respondent subjected the claimant to direct race discrimination.
The discrimination found was twofold. First, the respondent denied the claimant the opportunity to apply for an associate professorship. Second, it awarded an associate professorship in August 2021 to another candidate, Katherine Hyatt, on different conditions from those imposed on the claimant.
The tribunal dismissed the other claims and allegations brought by the claimant. It awarded compensation for injury to feelings in the sum of £18,000, with interest of £3,590.14 calculated at 8% from 30 April 2021 to 26 October 2023, giving a total of £21,590.14. The judgment records that the recoupment provisions do not apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found direct race discrimination in relation to the claimant's opportunity to apply for an associate professorship and the award of an associate professorship to Katherine Hyatt in August 2021 on different conditions. | Upheld | Race | £18,000 |
| Other | The judgment states that the other claims and allegations brought by the claimant were dismissed, but the extracted text does not specify them separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,590
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.