Cases2214958/2023

Claimant v King's College London

16 January 2025Before Employment Judge GlennieLondon Centralin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was redundancy due to the expected diminution in teaching work on the Middle East module and closure of the MA programme. Consultation was reasonable, notice period was complied with, and redeployment opportunities were made known. The respondent acted reasonably.

Breach of Contractfailed

The claimant alleged she did not receive the contractual 3 months' notice. The tribunal found notice was validly given by letter on 15 May 2023 for termination on 31 August 2023, complying with the contract.

Direct Discrimination(race)failed

Multiple allegations concerning marking disputes, removal of roles, closure of data breach reports, and dismissal all failed. The tribunal found no facts from which it could properly infer that race was a factor. All decisions had genuine, non-discriminatory explanations related to workload management, procedural matters, or redundancy.

Direct Discrimination(religion)failed

The tribunal found no basis to infer that the claimant's Muslim faith influenced any of the decisions complained of. All matters had explanations unrelated to religion, including marking procedures, role changes, and the redundancy dismissal.

Harassment(race)failed

Allegations included comments by Dr Eibl about Arabs and educational research, comments by management about the claimant's conduct, and a farewell email. The tribunal found either that the comments were not made, or were not related to race, or did not have the requisite harassing purpose or effect.

Harassment(religion)failed

Allegations included comments by Dr Sircar about teaching gender topics and liberal curriculum, and by Professor Tillin about a potential mentor working on modernisation. The tribunal found these were either not made as alleged, or were ordinary collegial discussions unrelated to the claimant's religion, and it was not reasonable for them to have a harassing effect.

Victimisationfailed

The claimant alleged she was dismissed because of protected acts (discrimination complaints made in March-April 2023). The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was redundancy, which pre-dated and was unrelated to the complaints. There was no evidential basis to find the complaints played any part in the dismissal decision.

Facts

Dr Hatab, an Arab Muslim academic, was employed by King's College London on a 2-year fixed term contract as Lecturer in Global Affairs from June 2021. She taught modules on Middle East politics and other subjects. She raised concerns about data breaches, alleged surveillance by Egyptian security services, and difficulties with colleagues. In May 2023 she was given notice of redundancy due to closure of the MA programme and transfer of her teaching to another department. She brought claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and multiple complaints of race and religious discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. The dismissal was for genuine redundancy as the need for her teaching role had diminished. The tribunal found no evidence that her race or religion influenced any of the decisions complained of, including marking disputes, removal from administrative roles, handling of data breach complaints, or dismissal. Alleged harassing comments were either not made as alleged or were ordinary work discussions unrelated to protected characteristics. The victimisation claim failed because the reason for dismissal was redundancy, unconnected to her discrimination complaints.

Practical note

A claimant alleging discrimination must establish facts from which discrimination could be inferred; mere assertions of discriminatory motive, even where multiple complaints are made against several individuals, will fail without evidence linking decisions to protected characteristics, particularly where neutral explanations exist such as genuine redundancy.

Legal authorities cited

Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] UKSC 33Parek v London Borough of Brent [2012] EWCA Civ 1630Hassan v BBC [2023] EAT 48Bailey v GlaxoSmithKline [2019] EWCA Civ 1924Mervyn v BW Controls Limited [2020] IRLR 464Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931Grant v HM Land Registry [2011] IRLR 748Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.26Equality Act 2010 s.27Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98Equality Act 2010 s.136Employment Rights Act 1996 s.139

Case details

Case number
2214958/2023
Decision date
16 January 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
10
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Lecturer in Global Affairs
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No