Dr E Bodanese v Queen Mary University London: 3200643/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3200643/2023

Between

Dr E BodaneseClaimant

Queen Mary University LondonRespondent

Before

Employment Judge C Lewis

In person for claimant

Date 20 October 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]Equal Pay succeeds in respect of the Claimant’s pay from May 2021 onwards; Direct sex discrimination fails and is dismissed Indirect sex discrimination is dismissed REMEDY

[1]The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the total sum of £30,724.58 gross, subject to any deductions for tax and national insurance.

[2]Any employer’s pension contributions due on the additional pay. Interest in the sum of £4821.66

REASONS

Judgment having been given orally on 25 March 2025 and written reasons having been requested by the parties at the hearing in accordance with Rule 60 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure the following reasons are provided: I wish to apologise to the parties for the time it has taken to provide these written reasons, unfortunately the effect of pressure of work and lack of judicial writing up time has been exacerbated by my having broken my wrist just before an extended period of leave over the summer. I apologise for any inconvenience caused as a result. References in square brackets[ ] are to page numbers in the hearing bundle.

The issues

[1]A preliminary hearing was held on the 2nd of October 2023 before Employment Judge Crosfill at which he tried to assist the parties to identify the issues in the claim. Employment Judge Crosfill suggested to the Claimant that she make use of the guidance provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its Code of Practice on Equal Pay. At a further preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Gardiner on the 31st of May 2024 the issues in the claim were again addressed and a draft and amended draft list of issues was considered. A further amendment to the list of issues was produced and at a hearing on the 10th of July 2024 Employment Judge Gardiner identified the issues and set them out in his record of the preliminary hearing. The Claimant provided an amended version on the 1st of August 2024 in compliance with the order made by Employment Judge Gardiner [217-222].

[2]Since serving its Amended Grounds of Resistance the Respondent has conceded that Dr Schormans and the Claimant were engaged in ‘like work’ within the meaning of section 65 and for the purposes of Chapter 3 of the Equality Act 2010.

[3]The list of issues still required further work, however and was discussed on the first day of the final hearing. In our discussion the Respondent clarified its position on a number of issues and produced a draft final list of issues on the 27th of February to reflect our discussion on 26 February however the Respondent rewrote the List of Issues in a way that separated out the equal pay and direct and indirect pay claims when the Claimant’s List of Issues had quite properly set those out as questions under the issue of equal pay sections at 5.

[4]The List of Issues was updated on the 5th of March 2025 to better reflect the issues in the Claimant’s claim as well as the Respondent’s defence and it was agreed that this was the list of issues that I had to decide: that is the list set out below. List of issues 1. Jurisdiction1.1 Are any of the Claimant’s discrimination claims out of time per s.123 EqA 2010? The Early Conciliation Certificate shows that conciliation commenced on 27 January 2023 and ended on 10 March 2023. The Respondent will say any claim prior to 28 October 2022 is prima facie out of time. The Claimant will say that the acts and omissions set out in ET11 parts (j) to (n) of paragraph 8 occurred less than three months, plus the additional time extension following participation in early conciliation, before the submitted claim.

1.2 For any claims outside the primary limitation period, do they form part of conduct extending over a period of time ending with a discriminatory act that is in time? The Claimant will say that if any of the acts and/or omissions set out in parts (a) to (i) of paragraph 8 set out in ET1 occurred more than three months plus the extension for early conciliation before the claim was submitted, they amounted to conduct extending over a period within the meaning of section 123(3)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. Are any of the Claimant’s claims precluded by s.70 EqA 2010?

1.3 For any claims that are not in time, is it just and equitable to extend time?

1.4 Are any of the Claimant’s discrimination complaints precluded by section Equality Act 2010 on the basis that they relate to a term that is modified by, or included by virtue of a sex equality clause? 2. Equal Pay/breach of equality clause: Equality Act 2010 s66

2.1 The Claimant alleges that the Respondent was in breach of a sex equality clause under s66 EqA 2010 in that she was engaged in like work to that of Dr John Schormans and the term in her contract as to salary level was less favourable than the corresponding term in Dr John Schormans’ contract.

2.2 In March 2021, the Claimant made her first application for a raise of salary following the same application process as her male comparator, therefore, the Claimant alleges, from August 2021 the Claimant should be receiving her requested salary rise. 3. Whether the Claimant did like work

3.1 Was the Claimant engaged in like work to that of Dr John Schormans from September 2019, who was also employed as a Senior Lecturer Grade 7?

3.2 The Respondent accepts the Claimant was engaged in like work to that of Dr John Schormans from September 2019, who was also employed as a Senior Lecturer, Grade 7. 1 ET1 refers to the Particular of Claim Amended on 24th September 2023. 4. Whether Claimant’s terms less favourable than those of comparator

4.1 Were the Claimant’s terms of employment in relation to pay, which concerns the pay based on salary spinal points inside the discretionary zone, less favourable than those of Dr John Schormans?

4.2 The Respondent admits the Claimant was paid as a Grade 7, Spinal Point 49, and Dr Schormans was paid as a Grade 7, Spinal Point 53 from September 2019 onwards.

List of issues

[5]Whether material factor defence made out5.1 Was the difference between the Claimant’s terms and those of Dr John Schormans because of a material factor?

5.2 The Respondent relies on the differences between Dr Schormans’ assessments in the SBS, and his applications throughout the relevant period of time, but addresses in detail the other matters which were operative at each point of time.

5.3 Between September 2019, and September 2021 there had not been an application for a salary increase which could have come into effect i.e. the Claimant’s first application in this period on 4 March 2021 had not had time to come into effect even if it had been successful; any pay increase would be back-dated to 1 August of the relevant year, and would be paid in September unless the decision was reached and communicated in time for August’s payroll. The Claimant’s position can be distinguished from Dr Schormans in this period of time in that he had made an application and it had come into effect between September 2019 and September 2021.

5.4 From September 2021 until September 2022 the Claimant’s application on 4 March 2021 for an increase in points on the pay scale was made to the Salary Bonus Scheme “SBS” at a time when the Respondent maintains that, because of Covid, only a one-off bonus was available. The Claimant made an application for an increase in points on the pay scale on 28 January 2022 under the Academic Promotion Policy, which i) was not considered, and the applied for increase in points on the pay scale was not increased, because the Claimant was not applying for an actual promotion; and ii) would not have come into effect until September 2022 in any event; any pay increase would be back-dated to 1 August of the relevant year, and would be paid in September unless the decision was reached and communicated in time for August’s payroll.

5.5 From September 2022 onwards the differences between their respective working records, and the Claimant’s applications to the Staff Bonus Scheme (“SBS”) and Dr John Schormans’ are the reason for the difference in pay. The Claimant’s Academic Promotion application was redirected in May 2022, and if granted, would have taken effect from September 2022. The Claimant’s first application based on a selfnomination was refused because of the application of the SBS criteria which identified reasons not to grant the salary increase including a lack of Research as reasons to refuse the application, and not performing all of the elements of the role to an outstanding standard. Dr Schormans’ application which led to the increase in October 2017 was his third such nomination in a row over the past three years, evidenced substantial research, performance, experience, ‘citizenship’ in the Respondent’s sense of that word and other evidence of his work such as to merit, applying SBS, an increase in salary to spinal point 53.

5.6 Was the difference in pay because of the alleged material factors?

5.7 Can the Respondent show that the Claimant’s treatment was in no sense whatsoever because of the Claimant’s sex?

5.8 Can the Respondent show that the Claimant’s treatment was not due to the application of a PCP to its pay system that puts the Claimant and other women doing equal work at a particular disadvantage when compared with men doing work equal to the Claimant’s?

5.9 Was the material factor a means of achieving a legitimate aim? The Respondent contends that the legitimate aim in i) allowing increases to salary spinal points via the Staff Bonus Scheme prior to 2021, and after 2022 is an appropriate means of rewarding staff for performance appropriately; ii) restricting the Staff Bonus Scheme in 2021 to one off bonuses was a means of addressing the financial uncertainty created by Covid 19 and the pandemic lockdowns; and iii) having regard to the wider impact of rewarding individuals without exceptional Research achievements to ensure the correct message is sent to other staff. All three are alleged to enable the Respondent to retain employees and to reward experience appropriately in respect of the relative costs, and aims in question.

5.10 If so, was it a proportionate means of achieving that aim? The Respondent will say that at each stage the means adopted were proportionate.

[6]Equal pay Remedy 6.1 Is it appropriate to award arrears of pay and, if so, in what amount?

[7]Claims under EqA 2010 s120: direct sex discrimination7.1 Direct discrimination: Equality Act 2010 s.13

7.2 The Claimant alleges that the Respondent directly discriminated against the Claimant by its conduct regarding her bonus and promotion applications in 2021 and 2022 respectively.

[8]Whether Claimant subjected to a relevant detriment 8.1 The Claimant relies on the following detriments:8.1.1 Did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably in relation to her 2021 application for an increase of her salary by being granted a discretionary increase in her spinal point:8.1.1.1 Act 1 - The Respondent did not inform the Claimant of the result of her application for an increase of salary by discretionary points in September 2021 as its procedure dictates.

8.1.1.2 Act 2 - On 15 November 2021 Professor Uhlig told the Claimant that her bonus application was unsuccessful because she had applied to the wrong scheme; [withdrawn by Claimant on day 2]

8.1.1.3 Act 3 - On the 22nd of November 2022, the Respondent’s report stated incorrect and untrue facts about the Claimant’s 2021 application. The report concealed the fact that the Claimant’s SBS application was supported by EECS School but had been taken out of the SBS scheme process [(ET1 paragraph 8 part (j), AIDC item 1 part (a).(iv)). The Claimant felt the report was an attempt to humiliate her and undermine her confidence in looking further into her pay information request].

8.1.2 Did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably in relation to her 2022 application for an increase of her salary by being granted a discretionary increase in her spinal point:8.1.2.1 Act 4 - On 22nd September 2022, the Claimant had a meeting with Samantha Holborn (SH) (Respondent’s HR personnel), in response to the question why her application had not been considered, Ms Holborn denied knowledge of it, and questioned whether the Claimant was on the correct contract; (ET1 paragraph 8 part (i), AIDC item 1 part (a).(ix)).

8.1.2.2 Act 5 - On 22 November 2022 the Claimant was told by Ms Holborn/was told that her application for a pay rise had been considered as an SBS application and had been unsuccessful. This decision was ultimately taken by Prof Wen Wang, Ms Holborn, and Julie Jamgotchian. The Claimant contends that they decided the outcome of the Claimant’s application without proper knowledge of the Claimant’s application, without following the Staff Bonus Scheme (SBS) criteria they should [have] been ruled by and without any formal documentation;

8.1.2.3 Act 6 - On November 2022 the report of Ms Holborn provided incorrect information about how her 2022 application had been handled and her question about pay equality was not answered. She stated that her workload under SWARM was less than that of other academics in the same department;

[9]Whether treatment was less favourable9.1 In doing the act(s) complained of, did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably than it treated Dr John Schormans?

9.2 If so, was there any material difference between the circumstances relating to the Claimant and Dr John Schormans?

9.3 In doing the act complained of, did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably than it would have treated a hypothetical male employed by the Respondent whose circumstances were the same or not materially different to that of the Claimant?

[10]Reason for less favourable treatment 10.1 If the Respondent treated the Claimant less favourably, was any part of the reason because of the Claimant’s sex?

[11]Indirect Discrimination: Equality Act 2010 s19 11.1 The Claimant alleges that the Respondent indirectly discriminated against the Claimant by requiring Teaching and Research (“T&R”) academics to have research grants to be promoted or receive an increment of salary spinal points, or by counting research hours only if the academic has a grant, or by using the SWARM model when measuring workload in research, or failing to take into account lack of Respondent’s support to employee’s research activities.

[12]Whether Respondent applied a PCP12.1 Did the Respondent apply a provision, criteria or practice (PCP) when assessing promotion or bonus applications of:

(a) requiring Teaching and Research (“T&R”) academics to have research grants?

(b) (apart from 50 hours per year of supervision for each PhD student) counting research hours only if the academic has a live grant (except 50 hours per year of supervision for each PhD student)

(d) failing to take into account lack of funding/support provided to or available to employees in relation to their research activities.

12.2 Did the Respondent apply, or would the Respondent have applied, the PCP in question to men?

[13]Whether PCP caused disadvantage13.1 Did the PCP in question put, or would it have put, women at a particular disadvantage when compared with men in comparable circumstances?

13.2 Did the PCP in question put, or would it have put, the Claimant at that disadvantage? 13.2.1 The Claimant relies on the following detriments for the Claimant’s applications for a discretionary salary increase by granting her an increment in the applicable spinal points:

13.2.1.1 The Claimant alleges she did not receive the pay increase and/or her bonus application was not successful because she did not have a live research grant, and women are said to be more likely not to have live grants, because they are likely to have taken maternity leave/more likely to have had breaks in their research as a result.

13.2.1.2 The Claimant alleges she did not receive the pay increase and/or her bonus application was not successful because her workload as assessed by the SWARM model was too low.

13.2.1.3 The Claimant alleges she did not receive the pay increase and/or her bonus application was not successful because the Respondent did not consider quantity and quality of research in circumstances where the Respondent provides little or no financial support to employees for research activities unless the employee themselves obtains a research grant.

[14]Whether PCP justified14.1 Was the PCP a means of achieving a legitimate aim?

14.2 If so, was it a proportionate means of achieving that aim? The Respondent will say that the legitimate aim of the PCPs represents a real business need and is used to assess applications for promotion and/or awards under the staff bonus scheme, which help retains and rewards staff for their contribution and experience.

[15]Remedy15.1 Is it just and equitable to award compensation?

15.2 In the case of any indirect discrimination, was the PCP applied with the intention of discriminating against the Claimant?

15.3 What amount of compensation would put the Claimant in the position she would have been in but for the contravention of the Equality Act 2010?

15.4 Has the Claimant taken reasonable steps to mitigate her loss? 5. On day 2 the Claimant withdrew the allegation that Act 2 was an act of direct sex discrimination. 6. The Respondent’s application, made on day 3, to strike out the Claimant’s case was refused for the reasons given orally at the hearing. Evidence 7. I was provided with a bundle of documents containing 738 pages and witness statements from the Claimant, Prof Steve Uhlig, Professor Paul Chapple, Professor Kokkoris and Tim Hubbard each of whom gave evidence and was cross examined. 8. I have set out below my findings of fact as far as they are relevant to the issues I had to decide. I do not seek to address every point about which the parties have disagreed but deal with the points that are relevant to the issues that I had to consider to decide if the claim succeeds or fails. If I have not mentioned a point it does not mean that I have overlooked it, it simply means that I have found it is not relevant to the issues. The Claimant’s contract 9. The Claimant is employed as a Senior Lecturer in the School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) within the Faculty of Science and Engineering. She was employed as a Teaching and Research academic [JD at 308-309] initially as a Lecturer, she signed a contract on the 28th of February 2003 and the date of the commencement of her appointment was the 1st of September 2003, her employment with QMUL is ongoing. 10. The Claimant’s contract was in the bundle [292-295]; a copy of the main current terms and conditions for academic staff dated 2010 was also in the bundle [296]. Clause 4 of the terms and conditions relates to pay arrangements, 4b) states: “Increases to the College’s salary scales will be those approved nationally from time to time for university clinical and non-clinical academic staff. Any increase will apply to the whole amount in the salary scale, including any element of London Allowance. … f) For all Academic Staff other than “off-scale” staff: The normal annual incremental date is 1st August. … g) Incremental progression will be automatic up to the bar for your grade. Thereafter, progression will depend on your contribution as assessed by the College. … i) For “off-scale” Academic Staff: Increases in pay or one-off bonus payments will be considered annually by the Principal, or in the case of members of the Principal’s Steering Group by the Remuneration Committee. London allowances shall be added to salary payments as agreed by the Council. It shall be pensionable.” Clause 5 relates to Promotion, Discretionary Points and Additional Increments 5 a) states: “For all Academic Staff other than “off-scale” staff: The College will consider, annually, applications made through its Contribution Reward Scheme. This may lead to the award of a bonus payment, additional increment(s) or further increments beyond the bar for your grade. Any award will normally take effect on 1st December following the recommendation. 5 b) The College will also consider promotion to higher grades annually. The procedures for this process are set out in the relevant Career Progress Scheme Guidance Notes as issued from time to time. Any award will normally take effect on 1st August following the recommendation. It was agreed that these policies and provisions form part of the Claimant’s contract with QMUL. 11. The Claimant was promoted to a senior lectureship position in 2012 [311]. On 18 September 2012 the Academic Staff Review Group which recommended that she be promoted informed the Claimant that the panel were, “particularly impressed by your strong contribution in knowledge creation, notably success with IU-ATC grants, and they looked forward to seeing strong publications arising from this funded work.” Job description 12. The Claimant’s Job Description [308 to 310] sets out, amongst other matters, that the work involves: organising and undertaking teaching through lectures, classes and other teaching duties; develop[ing] new courses on Electronic Engineering for undergraduate and graduate students; actively engag[ing] in research and publish[ing] the results at the standard of electronics Letters or IEE Proceedings or equivalent; engag[ing] in fields related to the work of the department to develop this work and assist the department to maintain its selectivity rating; supervis[ing] research students; submit[ting] research funding proposals; manag[ing] funds and supervis[ing] research staff as appropriate; present[ing] research seminars and conference papers giving the results of research work; undertak[ing] such administration duties as are reasonably to be expected; attend[ing] relevant meetings; undertak[ing] such other duties as may reasonably be required by the Head of Department from time to time. For senior posts the job description is essentially the same but the Research section includes more requirements on leadership and development of new initiatives [309]. The Claimant’s maternity leave 13. The Claimant took a period of maternity leave from December 2013 to November/December 2014. The Claimant gave evidence that on her return from maternity leave she struggled to obtain grants for research projects and suffered from lack of support to restart her research. This was not disputed by Professor Uhlig who was the Claimant’s line manager at the relevant time, he recorded as much in her appraisals. Appraisals 2014-2017 14. The Claimant’s appraisals from 2014, 2015, /2016 and 2017 were in the bundle [695 -735]. The appraisals were recorded in two parts, part one looking back at the previous year and part two looking forward to the next year. 2014-2015 15. The appraisal for 2014 to 2015 [694-705] records at 696 that the Claimant had been away from College for almost a year on maternity leave. The first of the objectives was that the Claimant continue teaching the same models as before maternity leave to assist in research comeback; noting that it was important that the Claimant be able to focus on restarting her research when she came back from maternity leave and therefore her teaching assignment should not contain any new modules on her return.

[16]Other objectives included, that she receive some support in building a new number of PhD students after maternity leave, which was linked to the strategy of helping her back to research outputs.

[17]The agreed summary stated that the Claimant would need support to rebuild her group when she comes back from leave. Professor Uhilg also confirmed this in his oral evidence.

[18]Under additional contributions “contribution for improving esteem profile” the following comment was recorded at 698, “it is being more difficult to meet this objective/ contribution as [C] does not have grants anymore and no PhD students she's been to two workshops both on her own expense in terms of development objective” At 699 under development objective 3, “continue teaching same modules as before the maternity leave to assist in research come back” The following was recorded under the heading ‘progress review’, ”EECS failed to facilitate this objective to [C]. As soon as she was back to work she taught two communications and networks module for the first time that turned out to be very difficult for her to physically cope with hers and her baby’s illnesses; as consequence of problems of young baby starting nursery [C] needed to be replaced for two weeks teaching because of being physically too ill to continue. The fact of teaching a module for the first time and teaching sensor and IoT for the second (after one year absence, with changes to be made) proved to be too much load to cope just coming back from maternity leave. EECS must change this for the future and comply concretely with the college helping structure to people who have long term leave. To make things worse, [C] was taken out of one of her research modules and given a new module to teach in the second semester, besides her clear discontent with this decision. Her research module in the first semester of the academic year is an important module to meet prospective project students (masters and final UG) and possibly potential PhD students. The fact that this was taken from her affects not only her load of teaching but also the ability to rebuild her research.” At development objective 4, it was recorded that one of the Claimant’s objectives was to: “receive some support in building a new number of PhD students after maternity leave” Under ‘Progress review’ [700], “so far [C] attended 2 research workshops using her own money, there has been no specific support from EECS in relation to new PhD students Looking ahead to appraisal year 2015 2016 [page 711] objective 1 expanding output and collaborations in C’s area of research linked to strategy networking meetings and writing grant proposals The Claimant’s comment was noted, “it will be difficult without monetary help from EECS for networking trips and the teaching load of the new module to teaching semester 1 of 2015” At 705 the appraiser's [Prof Uhlig’s] remark was as follows: “The priority of C for the coming year should be to rebuild her collaboration network and put herself in a situation to deliver research results the year after, so the priority this year should not be on results.” 2015-2016

[19]The Claimant’s 2016 appraisal was also conducted by Professor Uhlig. At page 712 the appraisal records under the heading ‘career and development planning career and personal ambition’, the following: “rebuild research work in order to be able to improve publication profile as a result of new intellectual contributions (this was one of the included objectives in past years, clearly not possible for this coming year)” Under development objective 1 expanding output and collaborations it was noted that the Claimant had requested to have constancy in teaching (not new modules to teach) for at least three years from 2017. And at [713] Progress review recorded was C had difficulties because her teaching load is still high as she is teaching a full new module this year. All the lecture preparation, coursework and lab experiments preparation are taking a lot of time. [713] “ rebuilding research career slower than desirable because of teaching allocation and lack of money for resources.” Professor Uhlig’s comment [at 721] was that “the priority for [the Claimant] next year is to try to limit the teaching load to put more emphasis on research” 2016-2017

[20]The Claimant’s 2017 appraisal was also carried out by Professor Uhlig [723]. Under objective 1 expanding output and collaborations in [C’s] areas of research – he recorded that [C] had difficulties because her teaching load was still high as she was teaching a full new module in 2016 to 17 … the lecture preparation, coursework and lab experiments preparation has taken a lot of time [725]. The following comment was recorded [at 727]: “ during the period of August to December 2016, [C] had very little time to dedicate for research due to teaching tasks. This is typical time spent when teaching a module for the first time, or making necessary changes as module leader. This is the reason [C], requests to have consistency in the modules she teaches to allow her to settle the modules materials and then be able to dedicate more time to research.” Under ‘career and personal ambition’ the Claimant’s ambition was to ”rebuild research work in order to be able to improve publication profile as a result of new intellectual contributions” At development objective 1 it was noted “it is progressing slowly with the research being developed with the PhD students and some masters students” The progress review section recorded [728] that was this was “one of the included objectives in past years, still not possible due to high level of teaching load and still no resources for research” At 729 the appraisees’ comment is as follows: “The teaching load in the past year was very high and this had a severe impact on the progress in research; [C] had a high teaching load to since she returned from maternity leave with three new modules to teach in four semesters becoming module leader of three modules and this made research progress difficult. In 2016 the teaching load was very high with 2.5 modules taught and much higher because ECS 783 was implemented from scratch and ECS 501 with several changes, this had a severe detriment effect in research time. But the agreement was [C] would have constancy (no change of modules) in the next years to be able to work better in research. Now it seems that teaching will start to stabilise to a more manageable load and better balance with research. The past high load in teaching may have a detrimental impact towards [C’s] REF output. But research is progressing and the first publications of new developed work are being submitted this year. The other objectives were all accomplished. The appraiser’s note at page 730 is that “ [C] has delivered almost all her objectives and managed to kick start her research” SBS application 2021 20. In or around December 2019 the Claimant attended a support session on promotion at which Professor Wen Wang, the Vice Principal for the Faculty of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, spoke along with Tim Hubbard from HR.

[21]On 4th of March 2021 the Claimant applied for a pay increase through Grade 7 ‘discretionary point’ increments [316-324]. She made this application via the University’s staff bonus scheme (SBS) as a result of the information provided at the support session on promotion; the guidance she had received was to apply through the bonus scheme [313 to 315]. At the time of making her application the Claimant had the support of the then Head of the School, Professor Steve Uhlig [see page 324]. By 9th of November 2021 the Claimant had not heard about her application so she emailed Miss McDonald for an update [339 -340], Ms MacDonald replied that the Claimant should talk to Professor Uhlig [338]. On 15th of November 2021 Prof Uhlig told the Claimant that Tim Hubbard, the University's Reward and Benefits manager had said that her application was unsuccessful because she had applied to the wrong scheme and should apply to the promotion scheme instead.

[22]I find that the fact the Claimant was not told of the outcome of her application was due to a miscommunication [272] and that Professor Uhlig had not realised it was is responsibility to do this until he was prompted by HR. The Claimant accepted inhere vine that there was no indication that a man would have been treated any differently in the same circumstances. The SBS scheme in 2021

[23]The 2021 staff bonus scheme guidelines were in the bundle at 240 to 247, they have the publication date February 2021. The purpose of the 2021 scheme is stated as being intended to ‘recognise and reward exceptional contributions made by staff June 2020, in line with the values (inclusive, proud, ambitious, collegial and ethical)’. The Scheme description continues as follows [241]: “ [it] is designed to be rigorous, fair, transparent and objective. Bonus payments will be made on a one off non-consolidated basis.” There were two levels of bonus award available in the scheme, a team award which would be a bonus payment for each team member for a shared contribution; and an individual bonus award. There would only be one level of bonus available. The scheme stated additional pay increments will not be available through this scheme. The FAQs stated that any bonuses awarded would be paid in May 2021 payroll [246].

[24]The criteria for awards were set out at paragraph 3, for the application to be successful it must demonstrate the contribution made to the following criteria:• evidence of how the contribution is in line with the values...

• evidence of what the contribution has delivered against at least one of the following criteria:

• Development and delivery of innovative or creative new solutions

• Exceptional personal responsibility either as an individual or by a team as an example of good citizenship

• delivery of work activity or initiative that is beyond the usual scope of the role or their area of responsibility Evidence of the impact of what has been delivered, in line with one or more of the following measures:

• Legacy of initiative or contribution or cross functional collaboration will be greater than one year

• demonstrable reduction in wastage or efficiency gains

• Number of staff or students supported or benefiting from the activity

• financial savings or income generation new line risk mitigation accomplished

• Scale and significance of activity is beyond usual area of responsibility

• duration of contribution eg 3 plus months

• extent/ scale of cross-organisational/ team working with other parts of the organisation

• long term upscaling of team that has an impact on future ways of working / projects The Staff Bonus Scheme guidelines 2022

[25]The guidelines for the 2022 staff bonus scheme were in the bundle page 268 to 275. The purpose was set out under heading 1 at 269: “The 2022 staff bonus scheme recognises and rewards exceptional contributions made by staff during 2021, in line with the university's values. The scheme is designed to be rigorous, fair, transparent and objective. Bonus payments will usually be made on a one off non-consolidated basis, although an additional pay increment (for those in the automatic incremental zone), or an increment into/ within the contribution zone (for those no longer receiving automatic annual pay increments), may also be considered. There are two levels of one-off bonus available in the scheme: A team award or an individual bonus … An additional pay increment will be available through this scheme for those individuals who have delivered exceptional performance in their role at a level that is above the usual role requirements and has been sustained beyond one year and is reasonably expected to do so on an ongoing basis” [269] At heading 3, criteria for awards• evidence of how the contribution is in line with the values...

• Evidence of what the contribution has delivered against at least one of the following criteria: o development and delivery of innovative or creative new solutions o exceptional personal responsibility either as an individual or by a team as an example of good citizenship o delivery of work activity or initiative that is beyond the usual scope of the role or their area of responsibility

• Evidence of the impact of what has been delivered, in line with one or more of the following measures: o Legacy of initiative or contribution or cross functional collaboration will be greater than one year o demonstrable reduction in wastage or efficiency gains o number of staff or students supported or benefiting from the activity financial savings or income generation o risk mitigation accomplished o scale and significance of activity is beyond usual area of responsibility o duration of contribution eg 3 plus months o extent/ scale of cross organisation/ team working with other parts of the organisation o long term upskilling of team that has an impact on future ways of working/ projects One additional pay increment (for those in the automatic and incremental zone), one increment into / within the contribution zone (for those no longer receiving automatic pay increments), may be considered where there is evidence of the longer term impact of exceptional performance, at a level that is above the usual role requirements, sustained for longer than one year and reasonably expected to continue an ongoing basis.”

[26]I was told by Counsel that the 2022 scheme was a reversion to the content of the previous schemes in place prior to 2021. Mr Tim Hubbard confirmed this in his evidence. I accept Mr Hubbard’s evidence that the 2021 scheme was exceptional in that a decision had been taken to only offer bonus awards and not additional pay increments as a result of the impact of COVID and the resulting uncertainty about the impact on the University’s financial situation, together with the wish to reward those in support services and lower down the pay scale who had had to come in to work during the pandemic when others had been staying at home. Based on the evidence before me, including the published answer to the FAQs and Mr Hubbard’s evidence, I am satisfied that successful applicants for awards under the 2021 scheme were paid increases in their monthly salary payments from May 2021. Promotion application January 2022

[27]Based on advice she had received, in large part from Professor Uhlig, that additional spinal points were not available through the bonus scheme, and on the outcome of her application in 2021, the Claimant submitted an application for an increase in discretionary salary scale points through the staff promotion scheme (“promotion application”) on 28th of January 2022. The Claimant’s application stated that she did not wish to apply for a promotion to the role of Reader and instead applied for the same increase of salary scale points - three salary scales points from spinal point 49 to spinal 52 of grade 7 - as she had requested in her previous bonus application.

[28]The Respondent’s explanation for rejecting that application is set out of paragraph 12 of the Grounds of Resistance as follows: “On 18th May 2022 following the Promotion Panel’s recommendation, Julie Jamgotchian and Faculty Strategic HR partner, Samantha Holborn and Professor Wen Wang Vice Principal for S&E, discussed the Claimant’s application for additional increments. There were concerns over the strength of the Claimant’s application and it was decided that it would be rejected as her performance in the research aspect of her role was deemed unsuitable for an increase in salary. It was considered that the Claimant did not go above and beyond what a senior lecturer is required to do and therefore was ineligible for an increase in salary scale points. The Claimant was informed of the outcome by Professor Uhlig.”

[29]I did not hear from Professor Wang, Julie Jamgotchian or Samantha Holborn, none of whom were called to give evidence by the Respondent.

[30]The Claimant completed a personal circumstances form on 1 February 2022. Dymphna Murphy then contacted her on 9 February with a query asking which level she was applying for, the Claimant responded the same day stating that she was applying for ‘an increase in discretionary points not for a new level’, this prompted Ms Murphy to query whether the Claimant was applying under the correct scheme. Ms Murphy raised this query with Prof Uhlig, suggesting there had been some confusion as the SBS route would be the correct route for an increase in discretionary points rather than the academic promotions route. In his reply to Ms Murphy Professor Uhlig observed: “We had similar cases in the past. When I talked to Wen he said we should try the promotion round, not the bonus one, because this is not a case of a one-off or exceptional delivery but rather someone who had sustained contribution but who won’t get promoted. Either are fine with me but we need to converge on what we do with such cases and stop playing ping-pong because this is frustrating for everyone involved” In his oral evidence Professor Uhlig confirmed that the similar case he was referring to was Dr Schormans and that he believed his circumstances had been similar to those of the Claimant.

[31]Ms Murphy sent an email to Tim Hubbard on 10 February 2022 pointing out that the SBS can be used to recognise sustained contribution; she asked whether it would be worth the Claimant applying for a staff bonus and promotion just to get some feedback. Tim Hubbard replied the same day stating that he thought he needed to have a conversation with Steve [Uhlig].

[32]On 21 February 2022 in an email to the Claimant Professor Uhlig [386] advised her to keep her application in the promotion route for now – in his view the “bonus route did not make sense as it had nothing to do with a oneoff contribution”. I am satisfied from Ms Murphy’s email 10 February 2022 [383] that this was a misunderstanding of how the 2022 scheme would be applied.

[33]By the time the Promotion Panel met in April 2022, or at latest at the meeting itself, it had become clear that the Claimant was not applying for promotion – her application specifically stated she did not wish to be considered for the role of Reader but wanted to be considered for additional spinal points. At the panel meeting a decision was made to redirect her application from Promotion Panel to SBS. I am satisfied that the reason for redirecting the application was that the Panel considered that the Claimant had applied to wrong route, based on her statement that she did not wish to be considered for promotion to Reader. Consideration by the SBS panel

[34]On 9 May 2022 the Claimant’s application was sent by Samantha Holborn by email [450-451] to Professor Wen Wang, Martin Knight, Anthony Michael, Julie Jamgotchian and Tim Hubbard who formed part of the SBS panel [the email appears to attach the Claimant’s application]. Samantha Holborn’s email stated, “She applied for promotion but also wanted to be considered for a pay increase. The Head of School did not support the application. She did have some special circumstances as part of the promotion round. The assessment for salary increase is whether she has been performing a excellent level for a number of years for increment, or less time for a bonus.”

[35]I find that it was incorrect to say that the Head of School did not support the application, on the face of document it can be seen that Professor] Uhlig signed it, as Head of School, to confirm he supported the application.

[36]Professor Wang’s responded to the group email on 12 May 2022 [450] asking: “What is [Professor Uhlig’s] view as her line manager. If we are talking of a colleague who makes exceptional contribution in education, scholarship & Admin but in T&R roles (with weak R contribution), then we’d prefer School to come up with a plan to review which role is appropriate and engage the colleague to resolve it. Otherwise we build ourselves a bigger problem in future. A bonus/increments in salary role may send a wrong message. Can we deal this one in a school 2:2 meeting?” Anthony Michael replied: “ I agree with Wen’s reservations about [C]. While there is evidence of going above and beyond for education that might support a one off bonus, this risks dragging the focus even further away from Research without the necessary conversation within the School as to whether this colleague is in the more appropriate role ...”

[37]In her email to Professor Wang on 1 September 2022 the Claimant maintains that she has “the same level of workload, research output, teaching and admin roles as colleagues that have successfully received increase of salary raised by award of higher discretionary points in the salary scale” and states that it is discriminatory [456]. This is a reference to her comparator in these proceedings, Dr Schormans. Professor Wang replied on 1 September 2022 “… you applied for a salary increase in the annual promotion round. The panel meeting was to consider promotion cases -it is not an appropriate venue for salary review.” “ I don’t have much information on your previous application via the bonus scheme. In general, we ask HoS and Faculty Deans to consider if a colleague has fulfilled and exceeded their responsibilities. For T&R staff, this covers education and research as evidenced in teaching activities, grant income, high impact output …

[38]On 22 September 2022 the Claimant attended a meeting with Ms Holborn to discuss her application, during the meeting she raised the fact that she believed there was a gap in salary in comparison to a male academic in the school with a similar role who had been awarded discretionary increases to salary points. After that meeting the Claimant emailed Ms Holborn on the 11th of October setting out the points discussed at the meeting and requesting an investigation into the gap in her salary compared with the male academic in the same role and a report on any pay gaps, increases, or one off awards through the staff bonus scheme and promotion scheme during 2020 to 2022, as well as the minutes of the Faculty meeting regarding her promotion application in 2022. SWARM

[39]Ms Holborn provided a written report to address the Claimant’s queries on the 22 November 2022 and some pay equality statistics, in response to which the Claimant raised concerns that the SWARM system should not be used as a metric and commenting that it was well known for its inaccuracy.

[40]The Respondent’s position is that SWARM was not considered in the promotion or bonus decisions, as performance is the key metric for which applications under the promotions or staff bonus schemes were considered. There was a dispute as to whether the Claimant was assessed using SWARM.

[41]I do not find that SWARM was used to decide the Claimant’s applications. I accept the evidence of Professor Uhlig, Tim Hubbard and Professor Kokkoris to this effect, although Ms Holborn referred to it in her subsequent discussion this not an indication that SWARM had been used to assess the Claimant but rather, I am satisfied, a reflection of a wider discussion. Teaching and Research v Teaching and Scholarship

[42]It is not disputed that Samantha Holborn suggested the Claimant might want to consider moving to a Teaching & Scholarship contract.

[43]The Claimant maintained that Samantha Holborn saying to her “Are you sure you are on the right contract”, was sex discrimination; she was upset and humiliated by the comment. The Respondent denied that amounted to sex discrimination.

[44]The Claimant was shocked by the suggestion, she believed that it was to do with her sex: she was not the only woman to whom it was suggested that they move from teaching and research to teaching and scholarship after returning from maternity leave. The Claimant’s colleague Larissa was told after her maternity leave that in order to progress to senior lecturer her she would have to change to a teaching and scholarship contract because she did not have the research record and she was distraught.

[45]The Claimant found the suggestion upsetting she because she, like her colleague, wanted to do research and her research is of very good quality but she felt the university set her, and other colleagues who returned from maternity leave, up to fail by not giving them support to rebuild their research and support to obtain grant funding to do so. Instead they were given excessive teaching loads which then led them to be told that they should be thinking about teaching and scholarship contracts which was a vicious circle. According to the Claimant Professor Chen, who is the only female Professor in the school, was on a teaching and scholarship contract and was told she couldn't compete for PhD scholars, when she asked to change to a teaching and research contract she was told that she could not because she did not have a sufficiently strong research record, which the Claimant again described as a vicious circle. The Claimant maintained it was a familiar pattern of women being pushed towards teaching and scholarship contracts. She accepted that Samantha Holborn had tried to do this in a nice way but to her it was deeply distressing and upsetting; she did not want to move to a teaching and scholarship contract, she was a research academic and wished to maintain that research career.

[46]Samantha Holborn was not called to give evidence. She wrote a report of her meeting with the Claimant and sent it to the Claimant on 22 November 2022, it included the following account of their discussion [465]: “.. I appreciate that when we spoke I did touch on whether a Teaching and Scholarship route would be something you would consider, as you looked to have some key strengths and enjoyment in these areas and I do think it is worth exploring but appreciate that is something that needs careful consideration and you did not seem overly keen at the time … “ Ms Holborn set out the bonus scheme criteria at [464]. I have set out above that I found that Ms Holborn’s report was inaccurate in stating the Claimant’s application in 2021 was not supported by the school – it was signed by Professor Uhlig who was the Head of School who also confirmed that it was supported by him. The Claimant queried Ms Holborn’s report with Julie Macdonald who confirmed on 22 November 2022 [466] that the School did support the Claimant’s bonus application in 2021. However I am also satisfied that Professor Uhlig’s response, or lack thereof ,to the query instigated by Professor Wang on 12 May 2022 was such that it was interpreted, possibly incorrectly, as not being supportive of the application. Comparator

[47]The Respondent’s position in respect of the Claimant’s comparator Dr Schormans is set out in its Amended Grounds of Response, as follows: “[paragraph 38], Dr Schormans has been employed by the Respondent since 1995. Dr Schormans is currently employed as a Senior Lecturer within ECS. Dr Schormans was promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer on the 6th of June 2000 at point 1 spinal point 20 under the Respondents previous pay grading structure. On the 14th of June 2006 the Respondent implemented a new grading structure under the National Framework agreement. Under this new grading structure Dr Schormans was graded at spinal point 49 grade 7. [Paragraph 39] It is admitted that the Claimant was paid less than Dr Schormans Dr Schormans is currently paid at grade 7 spinal point 53. [Paragraph 40] It is admitted that Dr Schormans has been awarded discretionary incremental payments through the staff bonus scheme. Each application is decided on merit and consideration is given to what each candidate has done over and above their day-to-day role. Dr Schormans made the following applications:40.1 In or around 2006 Dr Schormans applied through the staff bonus scheme for an increase in spinal points. After consideration by a staff bonus scheme panel, Dr Schormans’ application was approved and he was awarded 2 increments to increase to grade 7 spinal point 51.

40.2 On the 26th of October 2015 Dr Schormans made another application through the staff bonus scheme for an increase in spinal points, with a recommendation from the Head of Department Professor Geraint Wiggins. On 9th of December 2015, after consideration by a staff bonus scheme panel, Dr Schormans’ application was approved and he was awarded an increased to grade 7 spinal point 52.

40.3 On 27th of October 2017 Dr Schormans made an application through the staff bonus scheme with a recommendation from the Head of Department, Professor Simon Lucas. The staff bonus scheme panel considered that Dr Schormans had made a sustained valuable contribution throughout his career at the Respondent, and over the last few years had made a contribution worthy of additional increment based on his extensive application. On the 14th of December 2017, it was confirmed to Dr Schormans that he would be awarded an increase to grade 7, spinal point 53.”

[48]A record of Dr Schormans’ pay awards were set out in his October 2017 application [655] which states that he, “was promoted to Senior Lecturer in 2000, was awarded 2 increments in around 2006, another in 2015-2016 and in 2016-2017 a bonus.” His October 2017 application was also successful and resulted in him being awarded the last increment available to a Senior Lecturer. I find that Dr Schormans was successful in his application for additional increments on 3 occasions 2006, 2015-2016 and 2017 -2018, and in 2016 -2017 he was awarded a bonus.

[49]The Respondent’s position is set out in GOR paragraph 41 “Dr Schormans’ applications through the staff bonus scheme were detailed and met the various tests to warrant the awarding of the additional spinal points. His applications demonstrated that he went above and beyond his role as senior lecturer. The Claimant’s promotion application did not meet the various tests to warrant the awarding of the additional spinal points. The Claimant’s promotion application did not demonstrate that the Claimant went above and beyond her role as of a senior lecturer and it was considered that her performance in the research aspect of her role was unsuitable for an increase in salary.”

[50]An overview of the Respondent’s pay and grading structure was in the bundle at [468] it includes an explanation “How the Grades work” with a key to explain the two different colours, light and dark grey on hard copy - light grey indicating the automatic increment – with progress automatic each year – up to the top of automatic increment zone called the ‘contribution threshold’ “ automatic annual increments still apply – up to and including the contribution threshold (the top of the auto increment zone)” The points above the top of automatic increment zone – in dark grey - are described as “contribution points” and the key explains “progression through contribution points are not automatic, and are based on agreed additional performance/output criteria (i.e individual contribution).” For Academic Professional Staff at Grade 7 the automatic increments span from 45 to 49 with 4 additional points appearing in the “contribution zone” i.e points 50 to 53 on the pay scale. Grievance

[51]On 27th of January 2023 the Claimant submitted a formal grievance regarding her 2021 and 2022 applications for increase in discretionary points and complained that they were dealt with unfairly and that the failure to award her a pay increase was unfair; she raised equal pay and sex discrimination complaints.

[52]The Claimant had been told by Samantha Holborn that the panel membership should be the same for the promotion panel and the SBS panel but that the criteria were different. I find that the Claimant is correct in asserting that her application was not considered by the full panel. It was not considered at the promotion panel where her Head of School would then have been expected to talk in support, or otherwise, of the application, that did not take place instead it was redirected to the SBS but because the SBS panel had already met and made decisions the panel reconvened by e-mail. It was not the full panel and Professor Uhlig was not part of the decision making panel. The Claimant alleges that the bonus panel, including Professor Wen Wang, did not consider her application against the agreed criteria set out in the SBS scheme but introduced its own criteria which included. requiring Teaching and Research (“T&R”) academics to have research grants and (apart from 50 hours per year of supervision for each PhD student) counting research hours only if the academic had a live grant.

[53]It was not disputed that Professor Wang was representing the faculty on the panel. Professor Wen Wang was not called to give evidence. There is email evidence in the bundle of what he said at the time to others on the panel and to the Claimant (above), and also his responses in the Claimant’s grievance investigation.

[54]In his email dated 11 April 2023 to Chantal Cross in the course of the investigation into the Claimant’s grievance Professor Wang stated, [569] “… For T&R staff we have minimal [sic minimum] expectation on contribution in Research. On this particular case, faculty panel raised concerns on the lack of evidence of active research project, past project as PI, grant application in past 12 months, 24 months and 36 months by the individual. - …”

[55]I find that the Claimant is correct that the panel including Professor Wen Wang introduced those criteria and used them to assess her application for additional increments. Professor Chapple noted the following in his report in response to the Claimant’s grievance [580]: “In the 2022 email discussion (12-18/5/22) between S&E Heads of School, of [C’s] application (which was ultimately considered for a salary increment and not promotion to Reader) concerns were raised regarding her performance in the research aspect of her role. This appears to be the grounds for rejecting her application. I am not an expert in the field of [C’s] research and cannot make judgments regarding her performance but have no evidence to support she was unfairly treated by the faculty panel. …” Professor Chapple also acknowledged that he was not able on the evidence to reach a conclusion on equal pay discrimination. However, that is the task that I have to carry out.

[56]The Claimant also relies on the Respondent’s EDI reports [starting at 325] including its 2021/2022 Gender and Ethnicity Pay Gap Report 2022 [358 at 371] which described the % men to women at Grade 7 as 55.9% men to 44.1 % women and at grade 9 68.1% men to 31.9% women. The Respondent accepts there is a pay gap between men and women but states that the explanation is that there are more men at higher grades. Ms Holborn’s response to the Claimant’s grievance provided figures for the Senior Lecturers in EECS in October 2022 [463]. Of 39 Senior Lecturers one person was in the contribution zone (another term for the “discretionary zone” above the top of the pay scale for SL) above the cap, noting “ they have been on the same salary point for over five years”. It was not disputed that this was Dr Schormans, the Claimant’s comparator. “There are 22 Senior Lecturers, including the Claimant, at the top of the scale, and 8 have been at top of the scale for 5 years or more. There are 8 female Senior Lecturers, including the Claimant – of these 7 are at the top of scale, with 3 reaching this level recently”.

[57]The Claimant was asked about the figures produced by Ms Holborn in the response to her grievance [at page 515]. The Claimant pointed out that she had been asking for information specifically about her comparator and she had been asking about people on her contract, which was a Teaching and Research contract, whereas Samantha Holborn had provided the answers for both Teaching and Research (T&R) and Teaching and Scholarship (T&S). The Claimant maintained that this information did not give the full picture in relation to her position, as the Teaching and Scholarship inclusion shows that women at the Senior Lecturer positions have been sidelined into Teaching and Scholarship because of a lack of research record. The Claimant pointed out that currently there is no female Teaching and Research Reader in the School and no female Teaching and Research Professor. She asked why is it that there are lots of women senior lecturers at the top of the pay scale who cannot go further. She pointed to the figures provided by Ms Holborn [at page 515 and referred to above] which show that there were 39 Senior Lecturers, of those 31 were male; 22 Senior Lecturers were at the top of the scale and seven of those were women; only one woman senior lecturer was not at the top of the scale; of 31 male Senior Lecturers in the Faculty 14 were at the top of the scale and 17 were not. The Claimant pointed to the disparity in the type of contract (T&R vs T&S) and also suggested the figures were evidence of clustering of women at the top of the Senior Lecturer pay scale, who cannot then go further up the grades due to lack of promotion.

[58]It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that this shows that proportionally more women are at the top of the scale [for Senior Lecturers]. However I am satisfied that the ‘bunching’ or clustering of women at the top of the scale could also be consistent with a form of glass ceiling – as suggested by the Claimant - where the female lecturers are hitting the cap on Senior Lecturer pay and not progressing to the grades beyond.

[59]I was not provided with any other information as to the distribution of women across the pay grades to counter the Claimant’s evidence nor any evidence such as the respective length of service of the relevant individuals which might otherwise explain the clustered distribution, albeit the evidence suggest that at least 4 of the 7 female Readers had been at the top of their pay scale for some time (as opposed to 3 who had recently reached it). Effect of maternity leave

[60]The Claimant gave evidence that going on maternity leave had a negative impact on her research which meant that she could not show that she had an active research project, or was a principal investigator in a research project, or grant applications in the past 12, 24 and 36 months, which were the requirements applied to her by Professor Wen Wang when considering her application for additional spinal points. I am satisfied that the negative impact of her maternity leave on her research was supported by the copies of her appraisals contained in the bundle and the evidence of Professor Uhlig who was called by the Respondent.

[61]The Claimant also complained that she was lacking in support on her return from maternity leave and was therefore unable to rebuild her research profile and be in a position to apply for a grant, or become a principal investigator; she maintained that the grants she received and obtained following her return in 2015 after her maternity leave were those that she obtained without support from the faculty. This was not disputed by Professor Uhlig. The Claimant pointed to evidence in the Athena Swan initiative publications included in the bundle [ 628-633 Imperial , 634-637 Newcastle] of other universities providing support to their female academics on their return from maternity leave to counter this disadvantage, these showed other universities for example, paying their academics a research allowance and pay for their equipment to counter the effect of the period of maternity leave. The Claimant relied on these as evidence that the negative effect of maternity leave on research careers/ opportunities was wellrecognised.

[62]The Claimant told me that she has maintained the quality of her research despite the lack of support and funding. The Claimant complained that Professor Wang did not assess the quality of her research but simply looked to see whether she held a research grant or was a principal investigator. The Claimant maintained that her research is strong and that she did everything she could to obtain funding but the only grant she could have obtained in 2016 was a life science grant to move on her research and even now she has been told she cannot progress because she cannot apply for a scholarship without being a principal investigator on a research grant. The Claimant maintained that if she had had support she would have been able to have applied for a promotion to Readership. The same thing had happened to other colleagues on their return from maternity leave, for instance her colleague Larissa who came back from maternity leave and was given an almost full teaching load, a similar situation to the Claimant’s, and to whom it was then suggested she should be on a teaching and scholarship contract.

[63]The Claimant also maintained that she had partially met the requirement referred to as PCP 4 [403] but if she had received the funding, she would have fully met it. The Claimant was taken to Professor Uhlig’s comment that her research had stagnated since her return maternity leave [403] but she maintained that if someone had read her application properly whether that was Professor Uhlig or Professor Wang they would see that her research is in fact better than her comparator’s, she had more grant money than her comparator and that she had published more publications with higher impact factors: that her research was discounted because she was a woman; and the impact of her maternity leave on her research was that she had not been able to get a grant and show a track record with published research and that this disadvantaged women. The introduction of that requirement made it harder for women and put them at a disadvantage.

[64]The Claimant also maintains that Professor Wang could not have read or evaluated her 2022 application; she had put in her application that she had been principle investigator in five research grants, that she was conducing active research projects, and had applied for grants in the past 12, 24 and 36 months [pages 423 to 424] [Claimant’s witness statement paragraph 26] and that if he had properly evaluated her application he would have seen that she met the research criteria under the SBS. It was put to the Claimant by Counsel that the decision was based on Professor Wang's perception. The Claimant’s case was that is a subjective assessment or perception not based on objective criteria. The Claimant pointed to the content of her application compared to that of Dr Schormans. In respect of the impact of the publications, the quality of the research and also the number of citations, there were more citations in the previous five years for her research than for Dr Schormans; looking at where they had been project leader the Claimant referred to five grants which brought in £732,000 for the university; in his application Dr Schormans only referred to being principle investigator in three grants which brought in approximately 600,000. The Claimant believed she had more citations in what she described as higher impact journals and brought in more money the only way Professor Wang could not see that was if he had not read her application properly and she maintains that he did not give her application proper consideration because she was a woman. Professor Uhlig’s

Evidence

[65]In his evidence Professor Uhlig confirmed the following:65.1 When he became head of school in December 2020 the faculty had control over the PhD studentship allocation. Before then the school had a number of PhD studentships and could decide which academics of any type would be allocated the studentship: it was open and anyone could apply. When he became Head of School the School was discussing internally which academics would get which PhD students, he does not know the arrangements before he became Head of School. In December 2023, 8 criteria were introduced where academics were ranked according to the live principal investigator grant income, so their active research grants as principal investigator were ranked by value of grant in decreasing order: these criteria are not formally written anywhere, but it is a practise of the School (EECS)

65.2 Professor Uhlig agreed that the Claimant did not have a live grant and therefore could not compete for the CSC (the China Scholarship Council) students where most of the university’s PhD students come from, or rely on for their funding; there are CSC studentships and then there are the Queen Mary University of London fully funded scholarships. The principal studentships are the ones fully funded by Queen Mary's and the CSC is a contract with the China Scholarship Council for principal studentships. There is a third pot which is less competitive which is a pot of funds that varies and it is up to the School to allocate those. Professor Uhlig accepted that the Claimant had never been eligible to bid for those. People who are without live grants are not allowed to compete. Professor Uhlig accepted that was the position from 2023 onwards. He also accepted that very recently academics without grants have been allowed to apply, this was as a result of the Claimant having fought against that and having said that it was discriminatory, so that in 2024 the School said it would create a quota to allow those without support to apply. Professor Uhlig confirmed that this was the situation but the policy was not written anywhere.

65.3 In his interview in relation to the Claimant’s grievance on the 13th of March 2023 he had given the answers in response to the questions he was asked by Professor Chappell as far he had been able to as the Head of School.

65.4 He thought there were two female Professors on T&R contracts in EECS and no Readers. When the Claimant suggested there was only one Professor on a T&R contract, Professor Uhlig was unsure and could not suggest another one.

65.5 Professor Uhlig could not think of any female academics in the EECS who had taken maternity breaks and had then progressed to the next level in promotion.

65.6 Professor Uhlig accepted that four of the women in the department had taken maternity breaks. The Claimant suggested that one colleague, Larissa, progressed from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer but in order to do so she was told she had to change to a Teaching and Scholarship contract after she had tried several times for promotion to senior lecturer on a Teaching and Research contract. Professor Uhlig did not disagree. He stated that he knew Larissa had not been willing to move to teaching and scholarship originally but then she did move to teaching and scholarship; he did not know of the link to promotion but accepted that she was a lecturer and is now a senior lecturer and he was aware that she was unhappy about being moved to a Teaching and Scholarship contract.

65.7 Professor Uhlig confirmed that he knew Professor Chen well and that she was, or is, on a Teaching and Scholarship contract. As far as he is aware she had not complained about it, but he was aware that teaching and scholarship staff are unhappy about not being able to receive PhD studentships. He was familiar with Professor Chen’s publications, but he was not aware of what grants she holds. He believed she had a decent profile/ publication track record which has changed in the last few years. As far as he was aware she was on a Teaching and Scholarship contract at least from when she was his Head of Education. He could not say when her contract had changed but accepted it would be easy to say looking at the publication output and that before becoming Head of Education she had a good track record of research. He accepted that Professor Chen had changed her workload and contributions as a result of not being able to compete for PhD students. The Claimant’s comparator

65.8 Professor Uhlig confirmed that he was Dr Schormans’ line manager when he applied for a bonus in 2016 and 2017. The only copy of an application that he had been able to find was that from the 27th of October 2017 which is in the bundle [654]. He did not have the document setting out the previous application and he could not remember what work the bonus related to in the previous year. Looking at that application, which he accepted also covered Dr Schormans’ activities and achievements in the previous years, Professor Uhlig stated that he could not think of anything that stood out from it from the previous year to warrant a bonus; he could not recollect anything particular, he just had a memory that Dr Schormans had to have more than one go to get the increment that he was seeking and so on one occasion he was awarded a bonus instead of an increment.

65.9 He thought that a similar application had been submitted by Dr Schormans the previous year for spinal points, it was unsuccessful and he had been awarded a bonus. The only feeling of that he could recall was that Dr Schormans had had to apply more than once to obtain the increment. He thought it was possible from the timeline that he was unsuccessful and was awarded a bonus instead.

65.10 Professor Uhlig confirmed that the application in the bundle was a successful application for increased spinal points in 2017. It included reference to research from 2014 and 2015 grants. In terms of what was recent, or new, in support of the application in 2017 Professor Uhlig initially suggested the Terragence award, but accepted it dated from 2014. There was reference to an ongoing contract in September 2017 but Professor Uhlig accepted that the majority of what was in the application would most likely have also been referred to in the earlier applications made by Dr Schormans.

65.11 Professor Uhlig was asked what ‘exceptional or one off’ might look like for the purposes of the bonus scheme: he answered that a one off bonus would be for instance during COVID, which would be the easiest example of where someone had to do something unexpected, or not part of something they usually do for teaching or research but something above the expected standards and would only be for a limited period of time.

65.12 In respect of what was in Dr Schormans’ application that would be put in that category in relation to 2016/2017, Professor Uhlig referred to Section 2 of Dr Schormans’ application in relation to teaching and learning: references to things done in 2016 and 2017 which would suggest they were additional to the previous application; but he accepted that he could see references to 2009 and 2011 and dates which were older, and he stated that it was hard to distinguish whether there was anything new or additional in those which would be evidence in support of a one off bonus.

65.13 Professor Uhlig was asked about the Claimant’s application in 2021 [page 316]. He confirmed that he had looked at it at the time, that he had seen the application and had supported it [page 323]. He accepted that as with Dr Schormans’ case, an application for increased spinal points can also be considered for a bonus. He could see that the Claimant had set out that she was Director of Postgraduate Education in 2019 and had stated that this was particularly demanding due to the need to withdraw many modules and re write and check them for delivery during COVID, which looked as though that was unexpected additional work due to the impact of COVID. He told me that if he was looking at an application that looks to obtain an increment he might not try to extract from the application the elements that might justify a bonus but that you are asked to see the application as a whole. He accepted that the content of the Claimant’s application in 2021 fitted into the example he had just given of what might justify a one off bonus. He would be very careful as a panel member to consider it for something not applied for, although he accepted that in 2021 additional spinal points was not an option and only a bonus was available. He could not remember if the Claimant was considered for a bonus at that time.

65.14 In respect of the Claimant’s application in 2022 [page 389], and the narrative [390] Professor Uhlig confirmed that the six publications relied on by the Claimant were good. In terms of the stated criteria for assessing the application, that the example with Dr Khaled is an example of working with a technology company and he will be one of the receivers of the grant and that fitted in with overall collaboration with the Royal London which is in the public sector. He accepted that Mountain Rescue would also fall in the public sector category and that was on its face a valuable use in society. He accepted that there was evidence of a grant for a start-up but he could not say whether the people were actually using the technology.

65.15 Professor Uhlig was asked about his comment [at page 403] that the Claimant’s research had stagnated since she returned from maternity leave. He told me that the Claimant had been able to publish a good number of good quality research papers overall since she returned to work however he added that her research had been going well until she took maternity leave but the lack of support on return had made her research stagnate since then. He told me that he had been hoping and had conjectured that the Claimant would after her return from maternity leave publish as she did previously and then at some point go for promotion to Reader but unfortunately that has not been the case.

65.16 Professor Uhlig considered that before maternity leave the Claimant’s work used to be what he described as, “well balanced” and confirmed that as Head of School he had supported her application within the promotion scheme for the additional spinal points. He thought that the comments in the assessment explained the balance and explained why contrary to the panel's expectations he thought there might be a case for promotion and why he supported the application even though other applications they might be looking at on promotion might be stronger on research. He confirmed that the application was then considered for spinal points under the SBS and that his comments about the application and the Claimant’s research still hold true in that consideration and then when it came back for consideration for spinal points he strongly supported the application. He confirmed and repeated that he supported the application for additional spinal points and that he thought the Claimant’s work warranted those spinal points.

65.17 Professor Uhlig clarified that he became Head of School in 2020, prior to that he had been the Claimant’s line manager; as line manager he would help staff with applications and so forth, but he would not have the decision making capability in respect of awarding scholarships that the Head of School had. He explained that one of the reasons why a panel making a decision sits with the Faculty Dean of Education is because they have visibility of all the teaching functions, delivery, management of all programmes, in this case the Masters programme and the team overall and would have a well-informed opinion of the value of the contribution; the Head of School would have an opinion based on the evidence provided, but the Dean of Education would have an overview. The Dean at the time was Tony Michaels.

65.18 The promotion process and SBS are internal whereas the Research Excellence Framework (REF) is external and that there is no direct relationship between promotion and bonus and the REF.

65.19 Professor Uhlig considers that the yardsticks for the research are area specific, if he had to compare Dr Schormans with the Claimant, as their manager he would struggle - their workloads are different and their strengths are different. For example the Claimant has worked a lot on ethics and developed new programmes for delivery on the Internet of Things while Dr Schormans was very involved as a citizen in revamping the whole electric engineering programme for undergraduates throughout his career. Professor Uhlig thought it was unfair to try to compare the Claimant’s contribution to post graduate teaching to Dr Schormans’ contribution to undergraduates as a direct comparison is impossible because their contribution and nature of what they do is so different. He told me that he would really hate to have to compare them because he did not think there is a fair way to compare them for their own strengths and weaknesses, their workload is different and what they do especially in those two cases was very different.

65.20 Professor Uhlig did not accept that the ‘impact factor’ was a key determinant of quality of research or publication. He was aware of the publications in which Dr Schormans had published as they were in his own specialist field; the field was small and the publications were well respected in that small field but they would not have same level of impact as they would not get the same number of citations. He could not be sure about the publications the Claimant referred to as it was not his particular field.

65.21 Professor Uhlig did not think the SBS was the best route for either the Claimant or Dr Schormans and that promotion would have been a better route, however, it was not disputed that Dr Schormans succeeded in getting his pay increases – including a bonus.

65.22 Professor Uhlig gave two examples of where he said men were moved from teaching and research to teaching and scholarship contracts. He explained when he became a Director of Education he was aware one man who was not happy about his move but that was before he had become Head of School so he did not know anything about the circumstances in which the move had come about. Another was a colleague who moved from Reader during Professor Uhlig's time as Head of School, the colleague was not confident of performing well enough on the research side and they agreed together that he would move to Teaching and Scholarship.

65.23 Professor Uhlig gave evidence that the breakdown of those on teaching and scholarship contracts in the school was 50:50 male to female. He did not know the exact split on teaching and research but he was pretty sure it was “not good” and confirmed that in teaching and research it is mostly men.

[66]Tim Hubbard gave evidence that the Claimants application for additional spinal points in 2021 could have been considered for a bonus instead Like work

[67]The Respondent agrees that the Claimant and comparator Dr Schormans were carrying out like work from September 2019. Difference in pay

[68]The Respondent accepts that the Claimant was and is paid less than Dr Schormans for carrying out like work and that it has to explain the difference in pay from September 2019. The Respondent put forward different explanations for different periods of time. The Respondent accepts it has to justify the entirety of the difference in pay throughout the relevant period.

[69]For 2019 to 2021 the Respondent says the difference is explained by the fact the Claimant did not apply for an additional increment. I accept that explanation which was not contested by the Claimant.

[70]The Respondent’s case is that in 2021, when the Claimant did apply for an additional spinal point the material factor explaining the difference in pay is the exceptional circumstances due to COVID which meant that a bonus payment could be considered but additional spinal points were not available.

[71]I have found that in 2021 the Claimant followed the same process as Dr Schormans had previously followed by applying to the SBS scheme for additional increments: no documents are provided for Dr Schormans pre - 2017 application: the evidence from the 2017 application states that Dr Schormans applied in 2006, he was successful and was awarded two additional spinal points; in 2015 he was awarded a bonus and in 2017 he was again successful in his application for additional spinal points.

[72]I have found that the Claimant is correct that the panel including Professor Wen Wang introduced those criteria and used them to assess her application for additional increments.

[73]The Claimant relied on evidence of the Respondent’s own EDI Annual report for 2020-2021 [331],and the Athena Swan initiative which QMUL had signed up to and which was supported by other universities as acknowledging the impact of taking maternity leave on women returning to the research field, in support of her contention that women returning to work from maternity leave were disadvantaged by the requirement to have active research grants to be promoted or receive a salary increase and that she was not the only one affected.[ w/s at 29, 30] I was referred to the reports from Imperial College and Newcastle University [628-633, 634-637] on their work under the Athena Swan initiative, specifically acknowledging the effect of returning to work from maternity leave on women conducting research and the need to provide support for them on their return. The reports also pointed to women on return to work from maternity leave being given an increased teaching load filling up their hours with teaching before they had a chance to rebuild the research portfolio. I am satisfied that taking maternity leave had a negative effect on the Claimant’s research profile and that this was also the case for other women who had taken maternity leave.

[74]I accept the Claimant’s evidence, which was largely supported by Professor Uhlig that women were encouraged to take up teaching and scholarship contracts and this was a reflection of their difficulty in meeting the research requirements they had to meet in order to progress to the next level under a Teaching and Research contract (Reader). Submissions

[75]I was provided with a written skeleton argument by Mr Bidnell Edwards and the Claimant’s response incorporated in an edited version of that document. I heard oral submissions from both parties. The Respondent’s written skeleton sets out the relevant law on equal pay at paragraphs 13-16, the Claimant did not dispute that this was a correct statement of the law, she also relied on the EHRC Code on Equal Pay. It was common ground between the parties that a rebuttable presumption of sex discrimination arises once the gender-based comparison shows that a woman doing like work is being paid less than the man, the employer is required to explain the difference in pay and that the burden passes to the employer to show that the explanation for the variation is not tainted with sex. The factor relied on must be the genuine cause of the disparity and must be a “material factor”, that is a significant and relevant factor that is not the difference in sex, which includes either direct or indirect discrimination. EHRC Code

[76]As observed at paragraph 27 of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Code of Practice on Equal Pay, “although the law on equal pay may seem complicated its purpose is simple - to ensure that where women and men are doing equal work they should receive the same rewards for it.”

[77]The sex equality clause is explained in the following terms in the Code: Paragraph 28: a woman doing equal work with a man in the same employment is entitled to equality in pay and other contractual terms, unless the employer can show that there is a material reason for the difference which does not discriminate on the basis of her sex. Paragraph 29 explains that where there is equal work, the Equality Act implies a sex equality clause automatically into the woman's contract of employment, modifying it where necessary to ensure her pay and all other contractual terms are no less favourable than the man's. Paragraph 30 explains where a woman doing equal work shows that she is receiving less pay or other less favourable terms in her contracts, or identifies a contract term from which her comparator benefits and she does not (for example he is entitled to a company car and she is not ), the employer will have to show why this is. If the employer is unable to show that the difference is due to a material factor which has nothing to do with her sex, then the equality clause takes effect. Paragraph 30 (2) explains section 70 other sex discrimination provisions apply to non contractual pay and benefits such as purely discretionary bonuses, promotions, transfers and training and offers of employment or appointment to office. Equal Pay claim is correct route

[78]I am satisfied that the Respondent’s concession that the staff bonus scheme is a contractual scheme that falls within section 69 of the Equality Act (and is not excluded from equal pay provisions by section 70) is correct.

[79]The Respondent has conceded like work it therefore has to show that the difference in pay is due to a material factor which has nothing to do with the Claimant’s sex.

[80]The effect of section 69 is that once a woman has shown she's doing equal work with her male comparator the equality clause will take effect unless her employer can prove that the difference in pay or other contractual terms is due to a material factor which does not itself discriminate against her either directly or indirectly because of her sex. The Claimant has set out how she believes the material factor relied on by the Respondent either is not the real reason for the difference in pay and /or that the reason for the difference in pay is directly or indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex.

[81]The EHRC Code explains that the employer must identify the factors and prove (Glasgow City Council V Marshall

[2000] IRLR 272

, HL) that the material factor is the real reason for the difference in pay and not a sham or pretence; is causative of the difference in pay between the woman and her comparator ; is material that is significant and relevant, and it does not involve direct or indirect discrimination, if it is indirectly discriminatory, the difference in terms must be justified. [para 80]

[82]Personal differences between the workers concerned such as experience and qualifications may be material factors ( Code paragraph 77). Whether the defence is made out will depend on the specific circumstances in each case [ 78]

[83]If the material factor accounts for only part of the variation in pay, the woman is entitled to a pay increase to the extent that the defence is not made out (Enderby and others v Frenchay Health Authority and another 1993 IR LR591 ECJ) [para 79].

[84]The Code sets out an explanation of indirect discrimination under section 69 (2) at paragraph 84 and at 85 provides as follows: Statistical analysis which demonstrates a difference in the terms offered to men and women doing equal work but where one job is predominantly carried out by one sex, is one way of showing disproportionate adverse impact but it is not the only way.

[85]Paragraph 86 Where the disadvantaged group is predominantly women, and the group of advantage comparators is predominantly men, it will be difficult for the employer to prove an absence of sex discrimination (per Lord Justice Pill in Gibson and others v Sheffield City Council

2010 IRLR 311

CA, see also Enderby and others v Frenchay Health Authority and another

[1993] IRLR 591

ECJ.

[86]An employer can justify an indirectly discriminatory factor by showing that it is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim. Whether or not an employer’s pay practice pursues a legitimate aim will depend on the facts and circumstances in a particular case [88]. Even where the aim is legitimate, the employer must be able to show that the means it adopts to achieve the aim is proportionate in the circumstances. [89]

[87]The code at 119 also states that before making a complaint to the employment tribunal about equal pay, a woman should consider trying to resolve the issue with her employer. If informal resolution is not possible, a woman should lodge a formal written grievance. Burden of proof

[88]A woman claiming equal pay must prove facts from which an employment tribunal could decide that her employer has paid her less than a male comparator in same employment doing equal work. It is then for her employer if the claim is denied to prove that the difference in pay and/ or other terms is for a material reason other than sex. If the employer proves there is a non-discriminatory material factor which has resulted in the difference in pay the woman’s claim will fail. [128] If the woman asserts that the material factor is indirectly discriminatory it is for her to provide evidence of this, statistical or otherwise. The employer will then need to objectively justify the difference in terms (that is, prove that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim). [129]

[89]I took the relevant findings of fact and law into account when reaching my conclusions

Conclusions

[90]I am satisfied that the Claimant had a contractual entitlement to have her application for additional pay (bonus or spinal points) considered under the terms of the SBS scheme using the criteria set out in the scheme.

[91]The Respondent submits that a reason for the disparity in pay between the Claimant and her comparator was due to the application of the SBS scheme in 2021. I found on the evidence before me, that the Respondent has not established on the balance of probabilities that this was the reason. The comparator applied for spinal points the Respondent awarded him a bonus; the Respondent accepted that it was possible for the Claimant have been considered for a bonus under the scheme. The Respondent has not explained why she was not so considered despite her application setting out the type of exceptional work that met Professor Uhlig’s example of what might warrant a bonus and in the absence of any clear evidence in her comparator’s application which would fit the criteria for a bonus. Tim Hubbard gave evidence that the Claimant’s application for additional spinal points in 2021 could have been considered for a bonus instead and that this was available under the scheme that year. I am satisfied that this was an option available to the panel and is what happened previously to Dr Schormans when he was not successful in his application for spinal points but was awarded a bonus.

[92]The application of the SBS bonus scheme does not explain the difference in pay.

[93]In 2022 the Claimant applied for promotion and that application was redirected to the SBS scheme. The Respondent relies on the difference in outcome of the application which it contends was because of the different individual circumstances and ultimately the merit of the respective applications.

[94]The application of the SBS scheme is again relied on to explain the difference in pay in respect of the 2022. The Respondent has not established that this was the reason for the difference in pay. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Professor Wang introduced a different set of criteria, not that contained in the SBS, when deciding whether to award an increase in pay to the Claimant.

[95]The Respondent, in the alternative submits that the difference in their performance is material, significant and relevant. The burden is on the Respondent to establish this and they have not shown that there was a real difference in performance and therefore it was a material factor or that it was significant and relevant.

[96]The explanation relied on was the difference in the quality of their research and performing all the elements of the role to an outstanding standard, but on the evidence that was not the reason given by Professor Wang. If the quality of the research is the factor, and I am satisfied it is potentially a material factor, the Respondent has not established that the difference was significant and relevant. Nor has it established that Dr Schormans was performing all the elements of the role to an outstanding standard whereas the Claimant was not.

[97]I was taken to both of the Claimant’s applications and one application by Dr Schormans. Professor Uhlig gave evidence that was he was not able to judge between the Claimant and her comparator in terms of the quality of their research. It was not disputed that the Claimant’s research had been good and the examples in the application demonstrated a good research and good publication record. Professor Uhlig was clear that the REF was not a consideration and I have found that the impact factor was not a relevant consideration. Professor Uhlig’s evidence was that it was not possible for him to judge one publication against another in terms of the Claimant and her comparator and I have no other evidence before me to suggest Dr Schormans research was superior. The Claimant gave credible and cogent evidence that her research and publication record was at least as good as her comparator’s. I find that the Respondent has not therefore made out that the application of the SBS policy explains the difference in pay, nor on the evidence does the respective quality of their research. It is for the Respondent to establish the difference is material and they have failed to do so.

[98]I have found that the Respondent did not apply the bonus scheme criteria in 2022, Professor Wang applied his own criteria in respect of research, grants etc which has been adopted by the Respondent as a material factor however it has not shown that the deviation from its own policy in 2022 was to meet a real need.

[99]I am satisfied that Dr Schormans was assessed more generously by the panel considering his applications than the Claimant was by the panel considering hers. I am also satisfied that the alternative criteria introduced by Professor Wang are tainted by sex. The Claimant has provided cogent evidence that the criteria applied by Professor Wang have a disparate negative impact on women, due to the effect of taking maternity leave on their research profile and career and that women are less likely to have live grants, because they are have taken maternity leave/ have had breaks in their research as a result. Professor Uhlig confirmed that the Claimant was put at a disadvantage by the research requirement due to the impact on her research of having taken maternity leave.

[100]I find that the requirement to have an active research grant or have been the primary investigator in the grant in the previous five years did put women at a disadvantage due to the effect of maternity leave and that is tainted by sex. While encouraging research might well be a legitimate aim it was not in the SBS policy, it was an extraneous consideration imported whether from the REF or elsewhere by Professor Wang, his stated aim was to send a message to the department. It was a policy which he applied to the science and engineering faculty. I am satisfied that was not an aim adopted by the Respondent as a whole, or agreed and adopted by its Senate, or governing body, in relation to pay after careful consideration.

[101]While research record may be a significant and relevant factor for promotion the Respondent’s governance bodies have established a policy for SBS to allow for increased spinal points and I am satisfied that deviation from that policy at an ad hoc consideration outside a full panel does not satisfy the requirement of being both significant and relevant.

[102]There was no evidence before me to show that the criteria were a necessary or proportionate means of achieving Professor Wang’s aim. I am satisfied there were other possible ways to encourage applications with exceptional research focused outputs to reward the contribution to the department; there was a stated and agreed policy in place to do this. Other less discriminatory options available included providing support to women on their return from maternity leave. The Respondent has not shown that the application of this criteria was justified.

[103]I have found that the material factor relied on does not explain the difference in pay. The Respondent has not rebutted the presumption of sex discrimination for either 2021 or 2022.The claim for equal pay succeeds. Direct sex discrimination complaints

[104]I turn next to consider the remaining claim for direct discrimination.

[105]The Claimant did not pursue Act 1- not informing the Claimant of the result of her application for a salary increase in September 2021, she accepted that there was no evidence a man would have been treated any differently; or Act 2- telling the Claimant on 15 November 2021 she was unsuccessful because she had applied to the wrong scheme as acts of direct sex discrimination. Act 3 – On the 22nd of November 2022, the Respondent report stated incorrect and untrue facts about the Claimant’s 2021 application.

[106]I have not found this to be less favourable treatment because of her sex, I have found this was as a result of a miscommunication. Act 4 – Samantha Holborn questioning whether the Claimant was on the correct contract.

[107]I have not found this to be less favourable treatment because of sex for the reasons given above. Act 5 – the Claimant confirmed that it was the decision on the application itself that was the subject of this complaint (not being told about it).

[108]The decision falls under s 70 of the Equality Act 2010 and has been addressed above under the equal pay claim. Act 6- On November 2022 the report of Ms Holborn provided incorrect information about how her 2022 application had been handled and her question about pay equality was not answered. She stated that her workload under SWARM was less than that of other academics in the same department;

[109]I found that the information was provided in Ms Holborn’s report because that is the information Ms Holborn was given when she conducted her enquiry. I have not found that this was because of the Claimant’s sex. Indirect discrimination complaints.

[110]I found that the SWARM model was not used when measuring the Claimant’s workload in research. The remaining indirect discrimination complaints relate to the criteria used to decide the Claimant’s pay and have been addressed above in considering the equal pay claim so far as they are relevant.

REMEDY

[111]After the decision on liability was delivered orally the parties were asked to agree the difference in pay between what the Claimant was paid and what she ought to have been paid to extinguish the pay differential between the Claimant and her chosen comparator from 1 May 2021 which is the date from which a pay increase would have taken effect had it been awarded. The gross figures provided and agreed by the parties for the period from May 2021 to 31 March 2025 are as follows:

[112]From May 2021 to August 2021 the sum of £1850.75 ( the Claimant was paid £62,415 instead of £69818 - a difference of £7,403.00 pa or £616.92 per month x 3 months). From 1 August 2021 to 31 July 2022 the sum of £7514.00. From 1 August 2022 to 31 January 2023 the sum of £3869.50. From 1 February 2023 to 31 July 2023 the sum of £3947.00. From 1 August 2023 to 31 July 2024 the sum of £8126.00. From 1 August 2024 to 31 March 2025 the sum of £5417.33. The total sum in the relevant period is therefore £30,724.58 gross. Interest

[113]Interest in accordance with the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Case) Regulations 1996 in the sum of £4821.66, calculated as follows: 8% x £30,724.56 at 8 % per annum = £6.73 per day from the midpoint between 1 May 20201 and 31 March 2025 being 716 days (i.e. 36.73 x 716 = £4821.68). Pension contributions

[114]The Respondent is also liable to pay the Claimant the pension contributions on the additional pay subject to the Claimant also meeting any obligation for employee contributions for the relevant amounts.

Summary

[115]The total sum awarded is therefore £30,724.58 gross, which is subject to any deductions for tax and national insurance, plus interest and any pension contributions due on the additional pay. Approved by: