An engineering professor who was unfairly dismissed by the University of Edinburgh has been awarded more than £1 million after a 13-year legal battle.
The Edinburgh employment tribunal originally ruled in 2017 that Professor Sheikholeslami’s claim for unfair dismissal succeeded because the university had failed to follow proper procedures or explore reasonable alternatives, before terminating her employment.
The tribunal panel has now unanimously decided that the University of Edinburgh shall pay Sheikholeslami £609,400 for past economic loss, together with interest of £361,400.
Sheikholeslami, who is from Iran, was hired by the university in May 2007 as chair of chemical process engineering. She was awarded funds of £600,000 to establish a laboratory, but a year on, she complained to management about a lack of support and delays.
University unfair dismissals
Professor ‘astonishingly’ unfairly dismissed wins record £260k
Professor wins anti-Zionist belief discrimination case
University to pay £108,000 in compensation for failing to reinstate lecturer
The tribunal heard that she had not accepted the role “to move across the globe and to act as a technician and set up a lab”.
The claimant compared her treatment against that of a male professor who had been provided with a technician from the outset of his employment.
The tribunal found there was “miscommunication” between Sheikholeslami and her bosses regarding her expected involvement in establishing the laboratory.
By 2010, she was diagnosed with work-related stress and depression and began what would become a two-year period of sickness absence. During this time, her pay was reduced, first by half and then to zero.
‘Gender discrimination’
In April 2010, Sheikholeslami and a colleague, Professor Schaefer, wrote to the university’s principal Professor Sir Timothy O’Shea, stating: “As the only two female professors remaining from those hired and brought to the UoE in 2006-07 by the School of Engineering we would like to discuss with you how to make our work viable.
“Right now, under the current conditions, we are completely disabled in our employment due to gender discrimination.”
The letter went on to state: “To move forward, we would like to speak with you in order to find a constructive solution to the above issues which not only hamper our professional life and growth but also severely and adversely impact our health and personal circumstances to an extent we can no longer bear.”
The University of Edinburgh commissioned a review by Jo Shaw, a professor of law, into the engineering school. She published a report in December 2010. In it, she referred to communications in the school seeking to “deflect” the review away from systemic issues to focus on personal and personnel issues.
She also referred to earlier findings in 2006 that found men in the school appear to have been convinced that the recent appointment of four women professors was “entirely due to what they called ‘positive discrimination’”.
The review found widespread perceptions among male staff that “these women were appointed because they were women, not because they were good enough”.
Distasteful and indefensible
In 2011, both female professors received an apology from Professor Murray, head of the engineering school, which stated: “I am sure you know that I was shocked to hear these views, which I find distasteful and indefensible.”
The tribunal heard that at a meeting to discuss Professor Shaw’s findings, some in the school were unhappy. It found that Sheikholeslami “became regarded as an individual to be distrusted and disliked” and that people thought her gender claims were “overegged”. The tribunal found this amounted to victimisation.
There was even an “injunction”, in the words of one witness, not to contact her other than through solicitors as she was in dispute with the university.
In December 2011, Sheikholeslami was informed that her work permit would expire in April 2012 and that the University of Edinburgh could not offer her another position. She claimed it failed to provide adequate support or to explore options to extend her work permit.
The tribunal accepted evidence that she had expressed desire for a phased return to work in 2011 through another department at the university, but that these proposals were not acted upon.
The university formally dismissed Sheikholeslami in April 2012, referring to her work permit expiration as the reason.
The tribunal considered this to be a “potentially fair reason for dismissal” but that it was not within the band of reasonable responses because of the procedure adopted. The tribunal considered that once the issue of the work permit was raised, no further attempts were made to explore the options that might have allowed the claimant to stay in the UK or to engage with the claimant about her medical condition or whether she could return to work.
‘Negative assumption’
The original 2017 judgment said: “[The university] didn’t offer a meeting to discuss the termination nor did they offer an appeal. They had not followed their own disability policies or the Acas Code of Practice. The respondent acted on an adverse and negative assumption that the claimant had taken on secondary employment without bothering to check the true position. They did not follow their own grievance policy… In these circumstances, the tribunal concludes that the claim of unfair dismissal succeeds.”
While the tribunal did not uphold her claim of sex discrimination, it found Sheikholeslami was victimised for raising concerns about gender discrimination and suffered disability discrimination due to the university’s failure to apply its policies for managing sickness absence and disability accommodations.
Following six further judgments, including a previous remedy judgment and one in 2018 from the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the tribunal ruled that the respondent shall pay Sheikholeslami for past economic loss of £609,434, interest of £361,416 and an enhanced payment under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act of £18,569. There were also awards of £50,000 for injury to feelings, bank costs of £6,742, NHS costs of £23,156, and bankruptcy costs of £53,445.
A spokesperson for the University of Edinburgh said: “While we respect the judgment, we do not comment on individual cases and won’t provide a further statement on the matter.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Education sector HR roles on Personnel Today
Browse more HR jobs in education
