Dr Leary-Owhin v London South Bank University — 2022

Dr Leary-Owhin was a Senior Lecturer and Course Director in UELS. The dispute began with workload and dissertation supervision allocations in late 2018, followed by a prolonged email exchange between the claimant and Dr Tyler. The tribunal found the claimant's emails were persistent, public and increasingly confrontational, and that the matter escalated after colleagues asked to be removed from the email chain and Professor Barker began investigating the effect on relationships within the division.

The race claims failed. The tribunal found the claimant's references to discrimination were generally vague, tentative or made only as a possibility, and later allegations linked to Dr Tyler's 'race card' note were found to be false and not made in good faith. It held that Dr Tyler's note was written in frustration at what the tribunal regarded as an unjustified race allegation, and although the phrase was unwanted conduct, it did not satisfy the statutory test for harassment in the circumstances. For direct race discrimination, the tribunal held that Mr Adams and Ms Paice were not materially comparable and that a hypothetical comparator making a false race allegation would have been treated the same way.

The whistleblowing claims also failed. On the evidence before it, the tribunal held that nothing in the enrolment terms or course guide required face-to-face dissertation supervision for part-time MA Planning students, that the claimant relied on a document not produced to the tribunal, and that his belief was not objectively reasonable. Even if later comments were treated as protected acts, the tribunal found no later decision was materially influenced by them: the investigation, disciplinary process, appeal, notice reduction and Speak Up decision were all treated as matters arising from the concluded disciplinary process rather than retaliation for protected disclosures.

On dismissal, the tribunal applied the Burchell test and the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It found the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had been insubordinate and had bullied or harassed Dr Tyler and Ms Griffiths-Jones, that those beliefs rested on reasonable grounds after a thorough investigation, and that dismissal on notice was within the range of reasonable responses. The appeal panel independently upheld the dismissal and found an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.