Erin Hengel v University of Liverpool — 2024

Erin Hengel was employed as a Lecturer in Economics at the University of Liverpool and was subject to a long probationary period with confirmation in appointment requirements. The tribunal found that, in the Economics Subject group, the practical criterion applied for confirmation was conditional acceptance of at least two papers in academic journals rated 3-star or higher in the Academic Journal Guide. It found that the claimant knew that was the standard being applied to her and that she was repeatedly advised that publication in 3-star or 4-star journals was central to passing probation.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the respondent dismissed the claimant for capability, which was a potentially fair reason under section 98 ERA 1996, and found reasonable grounds for that belief. However, it held the dismissal was unfair because Professor Balogun had already decided the stage 2 outcome before the December 2020 meeting, so the claimant's representations could not genuinely affect the decision. That unfairness was not cured on appeal. The tribunal therefore upheld the unfair dismissal complaint and listed a further hearing to determine remedy.

The indirect sex discrimination claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent applied the AJG-based requirement to the claimant and to men, but found the claimant had not shown that this PCP put women at a particular disadvantage. It considered the evidence relied on, including publication-timing material, but held much of it concerned 4-star journals or earlier periods and did not show that the 3-star AJG criterion disadvantaged women at the relevant time. If it had been necessary, the tribunal would have found the respondent's aim of improving research quality and REF performance legitimate and the means proportionate.

The direct sex discrimination and harassment complaints also failed. The tribunal held that the claimant's R&R paper and her accepted AEA P&P paper were not treated differently because of sex, and that Dr Lu Han and Dr Ian Burns were not materially similar comparators. It found no basis to infer that comments describing the claimant or her email conduct as 'aggressive' or 'militant' were made because she was a woman. For harassment, the tribunal accepted the comments were unwanted, but held they were not related to sex and therefore did not meet section 26 EqA 2010.