Havovi Anklesaria v Trinity College, Cambridge — 2024

Dr Havovi Anklesaria, an Indian national with indefinite leave to remain, had worked in the Library since 1994 and invigilated examinations from 1996. She usually travelled to India from mid-December to mid-April. The tribunal held that the discrimination claims were in time as part of a continuing act ending with the September 2021 contract offer, and that it was just and equitable to extend time for the victimisation claim.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal rejected the claimant's comparator case. It found that the P45s issued in December 2017, November 2018 and December 2019 were explained by HR changes, including the introduction of the Cascade system and a new leavers process, rather than nationality. It found that Janet Procter did not refuse a permanent and flexible contract in November 2018, that Dr Bell and Mr Paul did not refuse one in April 2019, and that the August 2020 email was an explanation rather than a refusal. The later refusal by Mr Archer, and the appeal decision by Dr Bell, were found to concern the claimant's request for a contract allowing her to be absent for an entire term, and the tribunal found the proposed comparators were not materially the same.

On indirect race discrimination, the tribunal found that the respondent did not operate a PCP of not offering permanent and flexible contracts to employees who took breaks from work or moved away for travel purposes. It found instead that the respondent was concerned with ensuring permanent staff were not absent for an entire term, and that this position would apply regardless of nationality. The tribunal noted that the claimant was offered a permanent and flexible contract in September 2021, backdated to 4 July 2021, which would have allowed a break of around three months over the summer, but she did not accept it.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the ET1 was a protected act but found that the respondent's decision in 2022 not to offer further invigilation work was taken because the Acting Senior Tutor prioritised post-doctoral members and postgraduate students, with postgraduate volunteers covering the work. It accepted Professor Kusukawa's evidence that she was unaware of the claim when she made the decision. The tribunal therefore dismissed all three claims and did not proceed to a remedy hearing.