Newcastle University

Case Summary

The case involved direct race discrimination claims against Newcastle University. The Tribunal dismissed the claim as not well-founded.

The tribunal dismissed the direct race discrimination claims against Newcastle University after finding them not to be well-founded on the evidence.

• •The treatment complained of is the decision not to appoint the claimant as an external advisor following the termination of her employment. The treatment is admitted, and the respondent accepts that the treatment is capable of amounting to a detriment.
• •Did the respondent treat the claimant less favourably than it would have treated a hypothetical comparator in materially the same circumstances?
• •Was the respondent's decision because of the claimant's colour?

Case No. 2501766/2022 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Dr Ekaete Efretuei Respondent: Newcastle University RESERVED JUDGMENT Heard at: Newcastle Employment Tribunal On: 9 and 10 May 2023, deliberations: 22 May 2023 Before: Employment Judge Jeram, Mr S Carter, Ms L Jackson Representatives: Claimant: In person, assisted by her husband Respondent: Ms C Millns of Counsel The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: 1. The claim of direct race discrimination is not well founded and is dismissed. REASONS 1. By a claim presented on 25 October 2022, the claimant alleges that she was subject to a single act of direct race discrimination, being the decision to refuse to appoint the claimant as an external supervisor for a student upon termination of her contract of employment with the respondent. 2. This matter was case managed by EJ Sweeney on 8 February 2023 when the legal principles were explained to the claimant and recorded in written detail in Case No. 2501766/2022 2 the Case Summary. Those principles were revisited and discussed at the outset of the hearing. Issues 3. The issues were confirmed as follows: a. The treatment complained of is the decision not to appoint the claimant as an external advisor following the termination of her employment. The treatment is admitted, and the respondent accepts that the treatment is capable of amounting to a detriment. b. Did the respondent treat the claimant less favourably than it would have treated a hypothetical comparator in materially the same circumstances? The claimant does not seek to rely upon an actual comparator, but seeks to rely upon a hypothetical comparator whose circumstances were informed by a number of other external advisors who were appointed by the respondent. c. If the respondent treated the claimant less favourably, was it because of her colour? The claim…