The University of Portsmouth racially discriminated against an employee with Indian heritage when it failed to reappoint her to a lecturing role she had carried out for several years, choosing a less-experienced white candidate instead.
The Southampton employment tribunal said it was “extraordinary” that Dr Sharma had not been reappointed to a lecturing position she had held for five years.
The tribunal noted this meant 100% of the ethnic minority staff reapplying for their roles had not been recruited, whereas almost all white staff who reapplied were successful. It said this was statistically significant and the tribunal panel would have expected this to have triggered some form of enquiry under the university’s own policies.
Dr Sharma held a five-year fixed-term contract as associate head of organisational studies and human resources management. She was aware that there was no expectation that incumbent employees would remain in post at the point of renewal and that she would have to reapply if she wanted to continue in the role, but people generally were reappointed if they wanted to stay on.
Dr Sharma was interviewed for the post. The two final candidates were the claimant, who speaks with an Indian accent, and a white British woman. One of the panelists thought the claimant was the top candidate, but the other two panel members voted for the other candidate, including Dr Sharma’s line manager.
Race discrimination cases
Receptionist wins race discrimination claim after afro comments
Worker wins race discrimination case after club met ‘fair-skinned dealer’ request
The person who was appointed was new to the role and the tribunal saw no evidence that she would have been a better fit than Dr Sharma.
Dr Sharma asked for feedback after she did not get the role. When this was not provided, she filed a grievance, suggesting that her race was a factor in the decision not to reappoint her.
She alleged that her line manager, Professor Rees, with whom she had a difficult relationship, had treated her less favourably than the white candidate.
In the past, Prof Rees had asked her to report on work-related items before allowing her to travel to India upon the death of her father, and had continued to contact her about work while she was on bereavement leave.
Dr Sharma also said she had requested further support to carry out her role while her infant son was critically ill, but Prof Rees had not granted this despite offering support to white colleagues in the past.
Dr Sharma claimed that Prof Rees had discouraged her from taking the senior fellow of higher education academy qualification. A white colleague who sought the same qualification, however, received the backing of Prof Rees.
No one had informed her that the role was being advertised, including her line manager, despite Dr Sharma working in the position for five years.
Evidence provided to the tribunal showed that the claimant was one of only two staff who had not been reappointed to their roles.
The tribunal found that the university had not been able to show the selection process had not been motivated by race, and agreed Prof Rees had treated Dr Sharma differently to white colleagues.
Employment judge Elizabeth Rayner said: “We conclude that this is a case of subconscious discrimination. Whilst Prof Rees is clearly a respected senior academic his reluctance to recognise the skills and abilities and aspirations of Dr Sharma, and his failure to support and encourage her in the way that he supported and encouraged other white members of staff, points towards a subconscious or unconscious bias. We conclude that his involvement in the recruitment process and his subconscious bias means that the failure to recruit claimant was an act of race discrimination.”
The tribunal dismissed the allegation that the successful candidate victimised Dr Sharma for making a complaint of race discrimination.
A University of Portsmouth spokesperson said: “There is no place for race discrimination at the University of Portsmouth.
“The university recognises the strength of the ruling by the employment tribunal in this case and expects every member of our community to uphold the University’s values, without exception. We are examining the ruling carefully and cannot comment further while the legal case continues.”
The spokesperson added that the unviersity recently launched a new equality, diversity and inclusion framework and governance structure. It has also announced a new people strategy, which involves modernising its recruitment practices and enhancing the capability and confidence of hiring managers.
