Sheffield Hallam University

Case Summary

Dr Mvalo, self-describing as Black British African, brought claims of direct race discrimination against Sheffield Hallam University relating to treatment by his line manager Andrew Rawsthorne and failure to appoint him to an Associate Head role. The tribunal heard evidence over six days and dismissed all claims for direct race discrimination, finding they were not upheld.

The tribunal did not uphold the direct race discrimination claims. Based on the findings, the tribunal determined that while some of the alleged actions may have occurred, they did not constitute less favourable treatment because of race or were justified by contextual factors such as the manager's extremely high workload and the documentary evidence contradicting the claimant's accounts.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Time limit for bringing discrimination claims under Equality Act 2010 section 123
• •Direct race discrimination under Equality Act 2010 section 13
• •Whether line manager Andrew Rawsthorne said he would not have offered permanent contract
• •Whether manager would not arrange one-to-one meetings
• •Whether manager subjected claimant to negative one-to-one meetings
• •Whether manager failed to provide orientation
• •Whether manager failed to sign off personal development review
• •Whether manager spoke loudly during presentation
• •Whether claimant was not appointed to Associate Head role
• •Whether treatment was less favourable treatment because of race

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Dr S Mvalo v Sheffield Hallam University Heard at: Sheffield On: 16, 17, 18 19, 20 March and on 21 April 2026 (in chambers) Before: Employment Judge James Ms G Flemming Ms M Cairns Representation For the Claimant: In person For the Respondent: Ms E Hodgetts, counsel JUDGMENT (1) The claims for direct race discrimination (s.13 Equality Act 2010) are not upheld and are dismissed. REASONS The issues 1. The agreed issues which the Tribunal had to determine are set out below. 2. Time limits 2.1. Given the date the claim form was presented and the dates of early conciliation, any complaint about something that happened before 22 April 2024 may not have been brought in time. 2.2. Were the discrimination claims made within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010? The Tribunal will decide: 2.2.1. Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the act to which the complaint relates? 2 2.2.2. If not, was there conduct extending over a period? 2.2.3. If so, was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the end of that period? 2.2.4. If not, were the claims made within a further period that the Tribunal thinks is just and equitable? The Tribunal will decide: 2.2.4.1. Why were the complaints not made to the Tribunal in time? 2.2.4.2. In any event, is it just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time? 3. Direct race discrimination (Equality Act 2010 section 13) 3.1. Did the respondent do the following things: 3.1.1. The claimant’s then-line manager Andrew Rawsthorne said in an email dated 16 August 2022 and at a one-to-one meeting on…