Case 3201364/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Rossberg v Queen Mary University of London — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201364/2023
- Decision date
- 3 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Members
- Panel members
- Mrs M. Legg, Mr M. Rowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Rossberg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the Claimant was disabled by reason of type 1 diabetes and that the Respondent knew of the disability at the relevant time. The remaining live claims concerned the 2023 academic promotions process, including direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and whistleblowing detriment.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had not shown facts from which it could conclude that disability discrimination had occurred in the School Panel or Faculty Panel decisions. It accepted the Respondent's evidence that the promotion application was not supported because the panels considered it weak in some areas, including education and citizenship and inclusion, and not because of disability.
The Tribunal concluded that all of the live claims were not well founded and dismissed them. The earlier direct race discrimination, race harassment, victimisation, and breach of contract claims had already been dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination because of disability under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination because of disability under section 19 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The whistleblowing detriment claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination claim relating to nationality was dismissed upon withdrawal on 13 November 2023. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Harassment |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- section 123(3) Equality Act 2010
- Fuller v London Borough of Redbridge
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.