After a 13-year court battle, an engineering professor unfairly fired by the University of Edinburgh was awarded more than PS1,000,000.
In 2017, the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal ruled that Professor Sheikholeslami had a valid claim for unfair dismissal because her university failed to follow correct procedures or consider reasonable alternatives before terminating their employment.
The panel unanimously decided to award Sheikholeslami 609 400 PS for economic losses incurred in the past, plus interest of 361,400 PS.
Sheikholeslami was hired in May 2007 by the university as chair of chemical processes engineering. She received PS600,000.00 to set up a lab. A year later, she complained about the lack of support.
The court heard that she did not accept the role to “move across the globe, act as a technologist and set up lab”.
The claimant compared the treatment she received to a professor who was provided with a technician at the beginning of his employment.
The tribunal found that Sheikholeslami miscommunicated with her bosses about her involvement in the establishment of the laboratory.
In 2010, she was diagnosed as having depression and stress at work. She began a period of two years’ absence. During that time, her salary was cut in half, and then zero.
‘Gender discrimination’
Sheikholeslami, along with Professor Schaefer, wrote a letter to Sir Timothy O’Shea in April 2010 stating that they were the last two women professors hired by the School of Engineering and brought to UoE for 2006-07. They wanted to discuss how to make their work more viable.
We are totally disabled from our job due to gender discrimination.
The letter continued: “To move on, we would love to speak with your to find a solution to these issues that not only hinder our professional growth and life but also adversely affect our health and our personal circumstances in a way we cannot bear.”
The University of Edinburgh asked Jo Shaw, professor of law, to review the engineering school. In December 2010, she published a detailed report. She referred in her report to the communications within the school that sought to “deflect the review” away from systemic problems and focus it on personal or personnel issues.
She also referred back to findings from 2006, which found that men at the school appeared to be convinced that the recent appointments of four female professors were “entirely a result of what they called “positive discrimination”.
According to the review, many male employees believed that women were only appointed for their gender and not for their abilities.
Indefensible and disgusting
Professor Murray, the head of the Engineering School, apologized to both professors in 2011 for their views. He said: “I’m sure you are aware that I found these views distasteful, and I cannot defend them.”
At a school meeting, the tribunal heard that some people were not happy with Professor Shaw’s conclusions. The tribunal found that Sheikholeslami was “regarded as a person to be disliked and distrusted” and that her claims about gender were “overegged”. This was deemed victimisation by the tribunal.
One witness said that there was an “injunction” not to contact the woman other than via solicitors because she was disputing with the university.
Sheikholeslami received notification in December 2011 that her work permit was set to expire on April 2012. The University of Edinburgh told her that they could not offer another job. She claimed that the University of Edinburgh failed to offer her adequate support or explore options to extend work permit.
The tribunal accepted that she expressed a desire to return to work gradually in 2011 via another department of the university. However, these proposals were never implemented.
Sheikholeslami was officially dismissed by the university in April 2012. The reason given for this dismissal was that her work permit had expired.
The tribunal found that this was a “potentially reasonable reason for dismissal”, but it did not fall within the range of acceptable responses due to the procedures used. The tribunal found that after the issue of the work permits was raised, there were no attempts to discuss with the claimant her medical condition and whether she could go back to work.
‘Negative assumption’
In the original 2017 judgement, it was stated: “[The University] did not offer a meeting for discussion of termination or an appeal. They did not follow their own disability policies, or the Acas Code of Practice. The respondent made a negative and adverse assumption that the claimant was working in a secondary job without checking the truth. They didn’t follow their own grievance procedure… In this case, the tribunal finds that the claim for unfair dismissal is successful.
The tribunal found that, while it did not support her claim for sex-discrimination, Sheikholeslami had been victimised by the university for raising concerns regarding gender discrimination. Sheikholeslami also suffered disability discrimination because the university failed to implement its policies on managing sickness absences and disability accommodations.
The tribunal ruled, following six additional judgments including a remedy judgment and one from 2018 by the Employment Appeals Tribunal that the respondent must pay Sheikholeslami PS609 434 for economic losses in the past, interest of PS361,416 and a payment enhanced under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, of PS18 569. The tribunal also awarded PS50,000 in damages for emotional injury, PS6,742 in bank costs, PS23,156 NHS costs, and PS53,445.
A spokesperson from the University of Edinburgh stated: “While we accept the judgement, we will not provide any further statements on this matter.”
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
