Case 2216965/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Nora Sarabajaya v Kumar University College London CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216965/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Panel members
- Ms N Sandler, Mr P Alleyne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Nora Sarabajaya
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr Kumar was an Associate Professor (Teaching) in UCL's Department of Political Science. The tribunal recorded that she was severely sight impaired and a wheelchair user, and that the department's Tavistock Square and Gordon Square buildings were not wheelchair accessible. It found that exclusion from the departmental buildings amounted to a continuing discriminatory state of affairs from 2017 for Tavistock Square and from 2020 for Gordon Square, and that the claim was in time on that basis; if not, time would have been extended on a just and equitable basis.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal upheld complaints about booking fully accessible venues for social events and away days from October 2019, failing to install a platform lift as part of the 2020 refurbishment, failing to put in place a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan in January 2023, and failing from 13 June 2023 to give Dr Kumar longer to mark papers or fewer papers. It rejected the separate PowerPoint and visual-awareness training point and said some internal-feature allegations could not be made out because she could not access the buildings at all. In that part of the case it accepted the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of the substantial disadvantage caused by the inaccessible buildings and venues, and it referred to Ishola on provisions, criteria or practices.
On harassment, the tribunal applied Dhaliwal and held that the March 2023 communication about the accessible venue was unwanted conduct related to disability that had the effect of humiliating Dr Kumar, so that complaint succeeded. It dismissed the other harassment allegations, including the away-day allegations and the 8 June 2023 comment, which it treated as below the threshold for section 26 liability. In dealing with section 15, the tribunal applied Pnaiser on 'something arising' and accepted that some disability-related disadvantage had occurred, including missed opportunities and seminar access, but it found that the unsuccessful Vice-Dean (EDI), Professor (Teaching) Grade 10 and 0.4 FTE uplift decisions were not substantially because of something arising from disability. The direct disability discrimination claim was also dismissed. No remedy figure is set out in the supplied judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Sections 20-21. Upheld for failure to book fully accessible venues for social events and away days from October 2019, failure to install a platform lift during the 2020 refurbishment, failure to put in place a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan in January 2023, and failure from 13 June 2023 to give the claimant longer to mark papers or fewer papers. The PowerPoint/visual awareness training point and some internal-feature allegations were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Section 26. Upheld only for the March 2023 communication about the accessible venue; the tribunal held that this was unwanted conduct related to disability that had the effect of humiliating the claimant. The away-day allegations and the 8 June 2023 comment were dismissed as below the Dhaliwal threshold. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 13 direct disability discrimination. Two of the three application allegations were withdrawn during the hearing; the remaining 0.4 FTE uplift allegation was dismissed. The tribunal accepted non-discriminatory reasons and different comparator circumstances. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal found 'something arising' in part, including exclusion from the buildings, missed seminar opportunities and the graduate tutor role, but held that the unsuccessful Vice-Dean (EDI), Professor (Teaching) Grade 10 and 0.4 FTE uplift decisions were not substantially because of something arising from disability. It also said the Vice-Dean (EDI) decision would in any event have been justified. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 continuing discriminatory state of affairs / just and equitable extension
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.