Claimant v X

The tribunal found no objective evidence that the claimant needed more time to complete tasks due to disability. Further, the matters leading to the adverse recommendation were evident as early as 2018 and certainly by February/March 2022, before the claimant met the definition of disability (from 2 March 2023). No causal link was established between the treatment and anything arising in consequence of disability.

The tribunal found no evidence that the respondent applied a PCP requiring the claimant to take the same time as persons without disabilities. Even if there was a PCP, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know the claimant was likely to be placed at a disadvantage. The respondent provided adjustments when requested, including teaching relief, marking support, and removal of teaching duties. The claimant consistently delayed OH appointments and provided little information about adjustments she required.

The tribunal found the alleged PCP (probation requirement to achieve a module rating of 3.5 or higher based solely upon student module feedback without taking into account prejudices and biases) was not made out. Student feedback was one factor, not the sole factor, and low scores triggered further investigation. The claimant presented no evidence of group or individual disadvantage. The respondent's Athena Swan data and race data analysis negated any potential bias. Even if indirect discrimination was found, the respondent's approach was objectively justified as a proportionate means of ensuring teaching quality.

The tribunal found the alleged PCP was not made out. The claimant presented no evidence of group or individual disadvantage. The respondent's Athena Swan data on gender showed no significant bias in the Business School. The single example of individual disadvantage could not safely provide evidence of group disadvantage. The claimant's low scores were due to her performance, not her sex. Even if indirect discrimination was found, the respondent's approach was objectively justified.

The tribunal found the alleged PCP was not made out. There was no evidence that students were aware of the claimant's disability, so no group disadvantage could be established. The claimant's low scores were due to her performance, not her disability. Even if indirect discrimination was found, the respondent's approach was objectively justified.

The tribunal accepted three protected acts: grievances of 20 June 2023 and 10 May 2024, and a meeting with HR Director on 5 March 2024. The tribunal found no evidence that the detriments (partial exemption refusal, adverse recommendation, and notice of failure of probation) were because of the protected acts. The respondent never supported the partial exemption, and teaching concerns predated all protected acts. Collegiality concerns were raised in January 2023, before the protected acts. The adverse recommendation was based on compelling documentation of teaching concerns, not victimisation.