Cases6011511/2024

Claimant v University of Derby

2 April 2025Before Employment Judge PriceNottingham

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant committed misconduct (inappropriate and unprofessional language toward students characterised as misogynistic, transphobic, and ableist), had reasonable grounds for that belief based on corroborated written accounts from multiple students, carried out a reasonable investigation, and the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal concluded the dismissal was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996.

Facts

The claimant was a Senior Lecturer in Media and Film employed since September 2010 with an unblemished record. Following poor National Student Survey results in November 2023, meetings were held with students who made complaints about the course and specifically about the claimant's use of language, including referring to female students as 'females', making comments about attractiveness in music videos, making remarks characterised as transphobic and ableist, and creating a divisive atmosphere. Following investigation and a disciplinary hearing, the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct on 3 May 2024. The dismissal was upheld on appeal on 17 June 2024.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found that the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation. The decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses for a university with obligations to its students under equality legislation. Procedural criticisms (lack of notes at suspension meeting, failure to interview proposed witnesses) did not render the dismissal unfair overall.

Practical note

An employer may fairly dismiss for comments that breach equality and dignity policies even where there was no malice intended, if there is corroborated evidence, reasonable investigation, and the employer reasonably concludes the employee lacks insight and may repeat the behaviour.

Legal authorities cited

Miller v William Hill Organisation [EAT 0336/12]Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Taylor v OCS Group [2006] IRLR 613Hewston v Ofsted [2025] EWCA Civ 250Ramphal v Department for Transport [2015] IRLR 985Porter v Magill [2002] AC 357Adeshina v St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2015] IRLR 704Citizens Advice Merton and Lambeth v Mefful [2022] EAT 11

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98(1)Equality Act 2010 s.96ERA 1996 s.98(4)

Case details

Case number
6011511/2024
Decision date
2 April 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Senior Lecturer in Media and Film
Service
14 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No