Coventry University’s decision not to promote a lecturer with ADHD and a sleep disorder was not disability discrimination, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Mr Pipe, a former BBC journalist who taught journalism at the university, applied for a promotion three times under Coventry University’s framework for progression, but each application was rejected.
After he received a diagnosis of ADHD, he twice asked the university to consider promoting him outside the usual process as a reasonable adjustment.
Disability discrimination
Apprentice awarded £52,000 for victimisation and disability discrimination
Worker with sight loss wins discrimination claim against Mitie
One of the desired criteria for promotion to a level 7 lecturer under the university’s framework was to have a PhD. Although this was not an absolute requirement, it was considered the norm as the university wanted more lecturers with PhDs.
The university’s occupational health consultant considered that Pipe’s sleep disorder, which the university was aware of, would make obtaining a PhD difficult.
The framework also required a business case for the promotion to be made out by the applicant’s head of school.
Pipe’s initial application in 2017 was rejected. He later found a PhD supervisor and took on hourly-paid work as a grade 7 lecturer at the university, but his second application for a promotion in 2018 was rejected as he had not undertaken research at the expected level and had not made a convincing case about his leadership and management capabilities.
A final occupational health assessment in 2019 confirmed his ADHD diagnosis, with the report acknowledging that it might be difficult for him to achieve a promotion under the normal routes of progression – particularly as it would be unlikely for him to achieve a PhD without “a significant impact on his mental health”.
Pipe’s head of school told him there was no business case for a promotion for him because applicants to the journalism course had been declining.
The claimant lodged a grievance with the university in January 2020, asking it to consider promoting him to grade 7 “without going through the normal progression system… as a reasonable adjustment under the 2010 [Equality] Act”. This was rejected.
A further grievance in May 2020, which asked for another reasonable adjustment – to be promoted to a teaching-only grade 7 role – was also rejected. The organisation said it was its final position and asked Pipe not to make any more requests.
Pipe resigned from Coventry University in August 2020 and brought a case to the employment tribunal, claiming that the rejections of his applications amounted to a failure to make reasonable adjustments, disability discrimination and indirect disability and/or age discrimination.
The employment tribunal rejected his claims. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the judge had failed to address the aspects of his case that related to the events in 2020, so this part of his claim was sent back to the tribunal for reconsideration.
The EAT dismissed Pipe’s appeals related to his applications in 2017, 2018, and 2019.
Pipe challenged the EAT’s decision at the Court of Appeal. In its judgment in Pipe v Coventry University Higher Education Corporation this month, the court dismissed all of Pipe’s points of appeal.
Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing’s judgment says that the lack of a business case for Pipe’s promotion was a “show-stopper”, and that anybody without a disability would have encountered the same issue.
The employment tribunal’s judgment relating to events in 2020 that were being reconsidered is yet to be published.
A spokesperson for Coventry University said: “We are pleased the Court of Appeal has ruled in our favour and supported the earlier tribunal findings.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
“We take our duty as a responsible employer very seriously and will vigorously defend our approach.”
Education sector HR roles on Personnel Today
Browse more HR jobs in education
