University of Exeter v Dr Annette Plaut
[2024] EAT 159
Dr Oleg Iourin v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford
24 August 2023
[2023] EAT 108
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A researcher sued his university for sex discrimination and unfair treatment after a colleague accused him of harassment. A judge initially dismissed his case. A higher court found that the initial judge got some facts wrong, so they are sending that part of the case back for another hearing. The rest of the case was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Dr Oleg Iourin (Claimant) appealed an Employment Tribunal's dismissal of his Equality Act 2010 claims against the University of Oxford (Respondent).
- •Claims included direct sex discrimination, victimisation, and disability discrimination stemming from a colleague's (Ms A) grievance alleging sexual harassment by the Claimant.
- •The grievance committee found insufficient evidence of sexual harassment but did find some unwanted conduct.
- •The Claimant was subsequently required to undertake equality and diversity training, including harassment training.
- •The Claimant argued this training was discriminatory and retaliatory.
- •The Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the Claimant not disabled and that the Respondent's actions were not discriminatory.
- •The Claimant's appeal focused on errors in applying the burden of proof and misstatements of fact by the Employment Tribunal.
Legal Principles
Direct sex discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010, section 13
Victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010, section 27
Burden of proof in discrimination claims under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010; relevant case law: *Madarassy v Nomura International plc*, *Igen v Wong*, *Ayodele v Citylink Ltd*, *Law Society v Bahl*.
Equality Act 2010, section 136; Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] IRLR 246; Igen v Wong [2005] IRLR 258; Ayodele v Citylink Ltd [2017]; Law Society v Bahl [2003] IRLR 640
Disability discrimination under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, including 'deduced effect' under Schedule 1, paragraph 5; relevant case law: *Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark*, *Fathers v Pets at Home Ltd*, *Vyas v London Borough of Camden*.
Equality Act 2010, section 6, Schedule 1, paragraph 5; Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWCA Civ 1716; Fathers v Pets at Home Ltd (UKEAT/0424/13/DM); Vyas v London Borough of Camden (EAT/1153/01/RN)
Outcomes
Appeal partially allowed.
The Employment Tribunal made a material error of law by misrepresenting the grievance committee's findings regarding harassment. This error affected the determination of the direct sex discrimination and victimisation claims relating to the mandatory harassment training.
Allegations of direct sex discrimination and victimisation concerning the harassment training remitted to a new Employment Tribunal for rehearing.
The Employment Tribunal's factual error was material and prevented a proper consideration of the burden of proof and the Respondent's justification for the training.
Remaining claims (other allegations of direct sex discrimination and victimisation, and disability discrimination) dismissed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal found no errors of law in the Employment Tribunal's handling of these claims. The Tribunal’s conclusions on disability were permissible given the lack of medical evidence supporting the 'deduced effect' argument.