Dr C. Peters v University of Bristol — 2023

At the start of the January 2023 hearing, the tribunal refused the claimant's attempt to add a further direct race discrimination theory that the respondent's failure to offer reasonable adjustments was itself race discrimination. It held that the list of issues fixed by the December 2021 case management order should stand, because the respondent had prepared for the listed issues and an adjournment would have been needed to meet the new allegation.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal dismissed the complaints about the furniture order, the omission of "Dr" from the nameplate, the alleged withholding of the ERC fellowship extension, the missing payslips, and the later ill-health retirement / return-to-work communications. It found the furniture delay was explained by a general policy for summer furniture changes and by the claimant's office location, the nameplate omission was an administrative error that had also happened to others, the ERC extension was publicly available information, and the missing payslips were consistent with ordinary postal error. It also found that the September 2020 call with Prof. Schonle was at the claimant's suggested time and before the occupational health appointment had been arranged, and that the later occupational health and ill-health retirement steps were based on medical advice rather than race.

The harassment claim related to race also failed. The tribunal found that some alleged incidents did not occur, and that the remaining matters, including the taxi booking, the offer to accompany the claimant to the student meeting, the handling of the Dr Salvado comment, the shared Blackboard access point, and the writing-date invitation, did not amount to unwanted conduct related to race with the purpose or effect required by s.26 Equality Act 2010. It accepted that some of the interactions were unwanted from the claimant's perspective, but found they were explained by the underlying administrative or collegial context and were not race-related.

The victimisation claim was dismissed because the tribunal did not accept that the alleged protected act in November 2018 had been proved, and it found that Prof. Schonle was not shown to have been aware of it. It also found that the claimant was not eligible for accelerated progression because she had not completed CREATE 1 and could not meet the CREATE 2 requirement within the relevant timescale, so the application did not fail because of any protected act. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found the pleaded PCPs were not applied, the claimant was signed off work after her stroke, and occupational health did not consider her able to return to work or identify adjustments. No remedy was awarded.