Mr A Moghaddam v Chancellor and Scholars of the University of Oxford and 2 others — 2022

Mr A Moghaddam was employed by the University of Oxford from 1 May 2003 to 31 March 2019 as a senior postdoctoral scientist in Professor Quentin Sattentau's laboratory at the Dunn School. The tribunal found that, from 2018, the dispute between the parties centred on authorship, scientific control, funding for future work and the claimant's complaints about how he was being treated within the department. It accepted that the claimant made repeated complaints about authorship and academic integrity, but it did not accept his case that the respondents' conduct amounted to unlawful discrimination or retaliation.

On the fixed-term claim, the tribunal held that the claimant's successive fixed-term contracts after 1 May 2007 were objectively justified because his role depended on grant funding and there was no alternative permanent source of funding. It said the grant-funded use of fixed-term contracts for PDRAs was established practice at the University and that the claimant's employment was managed in a time-limited way that broadly fitted the funding available. The separate issue under s.4 ERA 1996 about a written statement of changes was said not to fall to be determined.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that the reason for termination was redundancy within s.139 ERA 1996 because funding for the claimant's research work had ceased. It held that the dismissal was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the relationship between the claimant and Professor Sattentau had broken down and that, without agreement about publications and grant applications, there was no realistic route to secure funding to continue the employment.

The whistleblowing claim failed despite the tribunal accepting that the claimant made disclosures about alleged appropriation of his work and breaches of authorship and academic integrity obligations, and that he reasonably believed those matters were in the public interest. The tribunal found that the alleged threats, humiliation, supervision changes, funding failures and non-renewal were either factual statements about the funding position or were not shown to have been caused by the disclosures. The race discrimination claim also failed: the tribunal found no less favourable treatment, considered that the respondent applied the same criteria to the claimant as to others, and held that the comparator evidence did not support an inference of race discrimination. The victimisation claim failed because the only protected act identified was the 22 March 2019 letter and appeal alleging racial discrimination, whereas the other complaints were not protected acts and the detriments relied upon were not caused by any protected act.

The disability claim failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant was disabled at the relevant time. It also held that, even if he had been disabled, postponing the dismissal until he was well enough to take part in the process was not a reasonable adjustment because the employment could not be continued without funding. All substantive claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.