Dr Ildiko Csengei v The University of Huddersfield — 2021

Dr Ildiko Csengei was a senior lecturer in English literature at the University of Huddersfield. In July 2020 the respondent commenced a redundancy exercise in the School of Music, Humanities and Media and used a scoring matrix that included research, teaching, contribution to the subject area/school/institution, and external engagement. The claimant was scored by a panel of Professor Schmidt, Professor Doyle and Professor Johnes, received the lowest aggregate score in the pool, and was selected for redundancy with employment ending on 31 August 2020.

The tribunal identified the relevant provision, criterion or practice as the use of research in the selection matrix, and considered the claimant's case both on the basis of use of the criterion and its application. It accepted that use of research as a criterion would place women at a group disadvantage because maternity leave can reduce research output over the assessment period. It was not persuaded, however, that the claimant personally was disadvantaged once the panel's evidence was considered.

The tribunal found that the assessors did take maternity leave and childcare into account when scoring the claimant, even though their approach was described as impressionistic and lacking a common objective rubric beyond the research output element informed by REF guidance. It accepted the evidence of the panel members that they had considered her maternity leave, ill-health, bereavement and childcare responsibilities, and concluded that the adjustments made were sufficient. On that basis the indirect sex discrimination claim failed.

In the alternative, the tribunal held that the use of research as a redundancy selection criterion was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of retaining staff who contributed to research and publishable output. It therefore dismissed the claim in full and recorded no monetary award.