Dr Eliane Bodanese v Queen Mary University London — 2025

The tribunal upheld the Claimant's equal pay claim in respect of her pay from May 2021 onwards. The Respondent had conceded that the Claimant and her comparator Dr John Schormans were engaged in like work within the meaning of section 65 of the Equality Act 2010 from September 2019, and the tribunal found her terms in relation to salary spinal points were less favourable than his.

On the material factor defence, the tribunal found that the requirement to have an active research grant or to have been the primary investigator on a grant in the previous five years put women at a disadvantage due to the effect of maternity leave and was tainted by sex. The tribunal found that this criterion had not been adopted as a policy by the Respondent as a whole or by its governing body, and the Respondent had not shown its application was a necessary or proportionate means of achieving the stated aim. The presumption of sex discrimination was therefore not rebutted for 2021 or 2022.

The direct sex discrimination complaints failed and were dismissed; the tribunal found the matters complained of were not less favourable treatment because of sex (for example, finding one issue arose from a miscommunication, and another reflected the information provided to an internal investigator). The indirect sex discrimination claim was dismissed, with the relevant pay criteria addressed under the equal pay claim. The Respondent was ordered to pay £30,724.58 gross in respect of the pay differential from May 2021 to 31 March 2025, plus £4,821.66 interest and pension contributions on the additional pay.