In person v Respondent — 2024

Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and s.139 ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the respondent had shown the reason for dismissal was redundancy. It found that the intended closure of the MA in Politics and Economics of the Middle East, together with the Department of Political Economy's ability to absorb some of the teaching, meant the requirement for employees to carry out the claimant's Middle East teaching work had diminished. The tribunal also held that the 15 May 2023 letter was valid notice of termination, so the contractual three-month notice requirement was met, and that the consultation undertaken from May 2023 was reasonable.

All direct discrimination complaints under s.13 Equality Act 2010, considered under the burden of proof in s.136 and the Efobi/Igen/Madarassy approach, failed. The tribunal found that the marking dispute in 2021, the removal from admissions tutor and Capstone roles, the October 2022 and January 2023 discussions, the handling of the data-breach reports, and the dismissal itself were explained by ordinary work reasons such as marking practice, workload, student numbers, and the closure of the Middle East programme. It found no facts from which race or religion or belief discrimination could properly be inferred, and where explanations were given it accepted them.

On harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal rejected the allegation that Dr Eibl made a comment about Arabs' mental capacity, found Dr Sircar's October 2021 comments were about the difficulty of the academic material and student feedback, and held that the 24 March 2023 meeting with Professors Tillin and Herrick was a response to the claimant's email conduct and repeated data-breach requests. Applying Grant v HM Land Registry, it found the 31 August 2023 farewell email was sent in good faith and did not have the purpose or effect of harassment, and it found Mr Norman's grievance report and Professor Herrick's evidence were reasonable descriptions of the claimant's allegations and concerns.

Victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 also failed. The tribunal treated the 31 March 2023 email and portal complaint as protected acts, but found that earlier alleged detriments pre-dated those acts, that Professor Ikpe did not know of the complaints when she did not provide a reference, and that the dismissal followed redundancy rather than any protected act. All complaints were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.