Case 2501766/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Ekaete Efretuei v Newcastle University — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501766/2022
- Decision date
- 1 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Mr S Carter, Ms L Jackson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Ekaete Efretuei
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Dr Ekaete Efretuei, alleged that Newcastle University directly discriminated against her because of race when it refused to appoint her as an external supervisor for a PhD student after her employment ended. The tribunal held that the operative decision was made by IB, who became involved after an impasse between SD on one side and SM and DMO on the other. It accepted that race includes colour, but found no factual basis from which to infer that the treatment was because of the claimant’s race.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The only claim was direct race discrimination. The tribunal found the claimant had not established a prima facie case and, in any event, that IB’s refusal to approve external supervision was explained by the view that an external supervisor was unnecessary and inappropriate in the circumstances. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 23 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Balamoody v UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Jaleel v Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
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.
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.