Claimant v Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

Claimant failed to identify any qualifying disclosure under section 43B ERA 1996. No information was specified as disclosed, nor to whom, nor when. The claimant did not explain the belief that the disclosure was in the public interest or that the belief was reasonable. Additionally, time limits were not addressed. The tribunal concluded there were no reasonable prospects of success and struck the claim out.

The claimant alleged the non-renewal of her contract was because she is Palestinian. However, she provided no basis beyond assertion to show race discrimination. She did not discharge the initial burden of proof under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found no facts beyond difference in protected characteristic and difference in treatment (Madarassy test not met). No reasonable prospects of success.

The claimant did not provide her date of birth or identify a particular age group. Her allegation was that the refusal to extend her contract was not directly because of her age, but because she allegedly found it difficult to comply with feedback from younger staff. This does not constitute direct age discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. No reasonable prospects of success.

Claimant's complaint of less favourable treatment due to fixed-term employee status under regulation 3 of the Fixed-Term Employees Regulations 2002 was struck out. She failed to allege that the treatment was 'on the ground that the employee is a fixed-term employee'. She gave various reasons for non-renewal (lack of funds, nationality, age) but did not link any less favourable treatment to her fixed-term status. No reasonable prospects of success.