Mr C Mansfield v Queen Mary University of London — 2021

The tribunal found that the respondent applied requirements for the claimant to work 18 contact hours per week averaged over the teaching year and for a workload principally comprising teaching and related duties. Those requirements placed the claimant, who was disabled by anxiety and depression, at a substantial disadvantage because he could not teach a large range of courses. However, the tribunal held that the adjustments sought, including Masters teaching without the usual PhD requirement, CCLS proof-reading work, reallocation of colleagues' modules, creation of new work, redeployment to an academic contract without the application process, and permanent full pay for reduced teaching, were not objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The disability discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal found that the pay reduction was related to the claimant's reduced teaching caused by disability, but did not have the objective proscribed effect required for harassment and was objectively justified for the section 15 claim. It found that the failure to follow a panel or appeal process before reducing pay was an oversight and not materially because of disability. Comments by Ms Lopez-Barillas about difficulty discussing challenging issues were found to relate to the claimant's conduct in meetings rather than disability. Mr Taylor's email was found out of time and the tribunal did not extend time.

The unauthorised deduction from wages claim succeeded. The claimant remained employed on a full-time contract and there was no express or implied contractual term permitting the respondent unilaterally to reduce his pay pro rata while leaving the contract in place. The tribunal held that the claimant had been paid less than his contractual entitlement from February 2019, but left the amount, including issues about ongoing deductions and any affirmation or waiver, to a remedy hearing.