Dr A M D’Arcy v University of Leicester — 2024

Dr A M D’Arcy brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against the University of Leicester after she was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal found that she was disabled by type 2 diabetes at all material times from 19 August 2020 and that the University knew of that disability. It also accepted that the redundancy process, media coverage, online abuse, and the risk of redundancy had a serious effect on her emotional state and that from mid-February 2021 she was unable to engage effectively with the redundancy process.

The disability discrimination claims were dismissed. For the section 15 claim, the tribunal found no evidence beyond bare assertion that the claimant’s inability to engage with the redundancy process or difficulty moving her belongings arose in consequence of her diabetes. It found instead that her inability to engage arose from stress and anxiety, and that the difficulties over removing belongings were caused by her emotional state, Covid-19 restrictions, the volume of items, and practical travel issues. For the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal found that the PCPs relied on did not put her at a substantial disadvantage because of diabetes; any disadvantage shown by the evidence derived from stress rather than diabetes.

The tribunal found that redundancy was the reason for dismissal and that the University initially had a genuine redundancy situation and a genuine consultation process. It accepted that declining student numbers created a reduced need for teaching staff in the relevant area and that the University had a legitimate need to work to its timetable for the 2021-2022 academic year. It also found that the University acted reasonably in directing communications through the claimant’s trade union representative and extending the time for her to express interest in the retained role.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the University’s approach became unreasonable after it changed its proposal from creating a fixed-term teach-out post to retaining one grade 9 teaching and research post in late Medieval and Early Modern Literature. The tribunal found that the retained post was a continuation of one of the three at-risk posts, not a new post in any meaningful sense. A reasonable employer would have reviewed the redundancy approach, consulted on the pool and selection criteria, and made a selection decision; requiring the at-risk employees to express interest placed the responsibility on them to seek to avoid redundancy. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not contributed to her dismissal by culpable or blameworthy conduct. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing, and no monetary award was recorded in this judgment.