Claimant v Queen Mary University London

Tribunal found the Claimant was engaged in like work with comparator Dr Schormans, was paid less, and the Respondent failed to rebut the presumption of sex discrimination. The material factors relied on (application of SBS scheme and research quality differences) were not established as genuine reasons; criteria applied in 2022 were tainted by sex due to disparate impact on women returning from maternity leave. Award granted from May 2021 onwards.

The Claimant did not pursue Acts 1 and 2. Act 3 (incorrect facts in November 2022 report) was found to result from miscommunication, not sex. Act 4 (questioning whether Claimant on correct contract) was not less favourable treatment because of sex. Act 5 (decision on application) fell under s70 and was addressed under equal pay. Act 6 (incorrect information in Ms Holborn's report) was based on information given during enquiry, not because of sex.

Tribunal found the SWARM model was not actually used when measuring the Claimant's workload in research. Other indirect discrimination complaints relating to criteria used to decide pay were addressed under the equal pay claim and found to be tainted by sex, but those were dealt with under the equality clause provisions rather than as separate indirect discrimination claims under s19.