Dr M Jackson v Cardiff University and 4 others — 2021

The claimant, Dr M Jackson, was employed by Cardiff University as a temporary lecturer in astronomy on a fixed-term contract covering the absence of Ms Gomez. The tribunal accepted that she has autism spectrum disorder and that stress/anxiety can be a symptom of that condition, but it rejected the suggestion that ASD affected her organisational skills or that the respondents knew she was disabled throughout the period of employment. The tribunal found that the first respondent ought to have made further enquiries only after Dr Wright raised the possibility of Asperger's syndrome at the probation meeting on 18 May 2017; before that point it held that the respondents did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant met the legal definition of disability.

A large part of the case concerned student feedback, module organisation, lab demonstrators, and the observational techniques trip. The tribunal found that some comments made by staff were unguarded or inappropriate, including Dr Richardson's references to "poor people skills" and the "mouth zipping" gesture, and Dr Roche's "module dis-organiser" comment to students. However, it found those matters were not shown to be because of sex or disability, and in several instances they were judged to be responses to the claimant speaking at length, raising issues off-topic, or struggling with the practical demands of the role rather than discriminatory conduct. It also found that Dr Roche had not deliberately withheld materials, coached students, or manufactured complaints against the claimant.

On the dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the reason the claimant's contract was not renewed was the expiry of the fixed term and the return of Ms Gomez to the post the claimant had been covering. It rejected the case that the dismissal was for failing probation or because the claimant had disclosed a disability. The tribunal also dismissed the claim for failure to provide particulars of employment, holding that the signed contract and later renewal letter satisfied section 1 ERA 1996, and dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim because no evidence was led of any underpayment or holiday pay issue.

The tribunal rejected the direct and indirect sex discrimination claims, the direct disability discrimination claim, the discrimination arising from disability claim, the reasonable adjustments claim, and the harassment claims. It held that many of the pleaded allegations were not proven on the facts, that many pre-dated any knowledge of disability, and that the pleaded PCPs either were not applied, were not neutral PCPs at all, or did not put the claimant at the relevant substantial disadvantage. It also held that the claimant's grievance and complaint-related allegations did not establish victimisation because the relevant protected acts or causal link were not made out.