Claimant v Queen Mary University of London

Claimant unable to establish prima facie case of discrimination. Could not identify who alleged discriminators were. No evidence showing Faculty Panel of nine academic members and support staff discriminated due to disability. School and Faculty Panels legitimately assessed promotion application as weak in citizenship and education areas. Burden of proof did not shift to Respondent.

Claim fundamentally flawed. The PCP relied upon (ambiguity re EDI representative background) did not match argument presented (HR officer vs academic). EDI representative's role is observation not advocacy, so background irrelevant. Claimant failed to show PCP put disabled persons as a group at particular disadvantage compared to other EDI-protected groups.

Claimant failed to prove second causal link between disability and fewer achievements. Evidence contradictory - whistleblowing claim based on already meeting promotion standard undermined argument that disability led to insufficient achievements. Faculty Panel expressly took personal circumstances (moderate to significant impact) into account and calibrated expectations accordingly. Decision not to promote not because of something arising from disability.

Respondent had clear process for considering personal circumstances. Personal Circumstances Panel assessed impact as 'moderate to significant'. Faculty Panel took this into account and calibrated quantitative expectations. Quality threshold for professorship remained constant but quantity expectations were reduced. Claimant did not establish PCP as alleged - Respondent does adjust quantitative requirements based on personal circumstances impact.

Tribunal found promotion applications assessed fairly and in accordance with guidelines. No evidence criteria made more stringent in 2023 vs 2022. Professor Pickersgill credibly stated he was unaware of alleged protected disclosures to Professor Bailey. Implausible that disclosures materially influenced decision of nine-member Faculty Panel. Claimant's applications legitimately found weak in citizenship and education. No detriment established as caused by protected disclosures.