Dr T Islam v The University of Leeds — 2022

The tribunal, sitting at Leeds with Employment Judge D N Jones and lay members Mr R Webb and Mr J Howarth, heard Dr T Islam's claims against the University of Leeds. It noted that two of the ten pleaded allegations had already been dismissed as out of time on 2 July 2021, and it considered the remaining allegations in the reserved judgment. The tribunal unanimously dismissed the claims for direct race discrimination, direct religious discrimination, harassment related to race or religion, and victimisation.

The main dispute concerned the June 2019 marking of a final year project on attitudes to homosexuality in the MENA region. Dr Kraetzschmar sought a further opinion from Dr Lars Berger after the first three markers disagreed, and the tribunal found that the real concern was methodological: the work used quantitative research and the markers had differing levels of familiarity with that method. Applying section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had identified facts capable of supporting an inference of discrimination, but it held that the respondent had shown race and religion played no part in the decision to seek a fourth view.

The tribunal reached the same conclusion on the complaints about emails excluding the claimant from discussions, the later moderation exercise, and the proposal to move responsibility for final year projects away from him. It found those matters were driven by academic and procedural concerns rather than by the claimant's race or religion, and it accepted that the proposed moderation affected several subject areas, not just AIMES. The tribunal also rejected the argument that the later approach to FYP coordination was victimisation, finding that the claimant had been asked whether he wished to take on the alternative role and that the decision was accepted without pressure.

The tribunal further found that support and counselling were offered to Dr Petzold and Dr Kraetzschmar because they were visibly distressed during the grievance process, not because they were white or not Muslim. It also held that the grievance outcome report's comments about CoPA and the assessment process were criticisms of the handling of the marking arrangements, not discriminatory remarks about the claimant. No remedy was awarded because all remaining claims were dismissed.