Dr Annette Plaut v Exeter University — 2022

Dr Plaut, a long-serving physicist at Exeter University, brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct race and sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation arising from student complaints, disciplinary action, suspension and her dismissal on 30 January 2020. The tribunal first dealt with limitation issues, holding that the discrimination elements in the second claim were out of time on the ACAS certificate point but should proceed because it was just and equitable to extend time. It also held that the unfair dismissal complaint was in time, and noted that the dismissal letter was poorly drafted and ambiguous as to the effective date of termination.

The direct race and sex discrimination claims were dismissed. Dr Plaut relied on her eastern European Jewish heritage and on the proposition that her loud and argumentative style was part of that heritage, but the tribunal found the complaints against her were about how she was perceived rather than because of race or sex. It accepted that some colleagues and students regarded her as overbearing or loud, but found no evidence that a man or a non-Jewish comparator with the same manner would have been treated differently.

The tribunal rejected most of the harassment and victimisation case, including the earlier alleged protected acts and the grievance-based harassment point. It upheld the claim arising from the 11 April 2019 suspension after the 3 April 2019 return-to-work meeting, finding that the suspension was a detriment following Dr Plaut's complaints and criticism of the University's equality and diversity approach. The tribunal treated that suspension as harassment and victimisation, but not the later grievance-based allegation.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found both procedural and substantive unfairness. It criticised the continued suspension after the final written warning, the failure to implement the remedial steps ordered after the first disciplinary process, the handling of the Student 2 matter, the use of material obtained after the hearing without proper disclosure, and the 16-month delay before the appeal was finally determined in June 2021. It rejected the respondent's case that dismissal was inevitable and held that the Student 2 concerns were not themselves a sacking matter on top of the earlier warning.

The tribunal said compensation for unfair dismissal would be uplifted by 25% for breach of the Acas Code and then reduced by 25% for contributory conduct, leaving 93.75% of attributable loss, but it did not quantify any monetary award in this liability judgment.