Case study: Dr A Moghaddam v University of Oxford and Others [2024] EAT 156

By Neil Guss Regional Employment Rights Manager &

     James Tinston Employment Rights Lawyer

Background

Dr A Moghaddam, a senior post-doctoral research assistant, had worked at the University of Oxford under a series of fixed-term contracts since 2003. His final contract, running from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2019, was linked to research funding.  His employment was dependent on the obtaining of grants for each period of fixed term employment.  

Throughout his employment, Dr Moghaddam faced challenges, particularly with securing independent researcher status. His working relationship with his supervisor, Professor Quentin Sattentau, deteriorated, and disputes arose over the appropriation of Dr Moghaddam’s research work. In particular when Professor Sattentau made an application for funding in 2018, Dr Moghaddam complained that Prof Sattentau had plagiarised his work and breached academic duties – Dr Moghaddam claimed that this amounted to whistleblowing. These tensions led to accusations of academic misconduct and allegations of detriment, and when Dr Moghaddam applied for permanent employment he was told that his employment would terminate on 31 March 2019. Dr Moghaddam’s mental health suffered as a result, and his employment was not renewed when his contract expired on 31 March 2019. 

Claims and Tribunal Proceedings

Dr Moghaddam brought claims before the Employment Tribunal (ET) alleging: 

1. Unfair dismissal. 
2. Failure to renew his contract due to protected disclosures (whistleblowing). 
3. Failure to make reasonable adjustments for his disability (anxiety and depression). 
4. That his employment should have become permanent under the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002. 

The ET dismissed all claims, concluding that Dr Moghaddam’s contract ended due to redundancy and that there was no procedural unfairness in the non-renewal of his contract. The tribunal also found that although protected disclosures had been made, they did not materially influence the university’s decision not to renew his employment. 

Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT): Dr Moghaddam appealed on four grounds: 

That his continued employment under a fixed-term contract should have transitioned into permanent employment under the 2002 Regulations. 

That the ET erred in not properly considering whether he had been subjected to detriments as a result of his whistleblowing. 

That his dismissal was procedurally unfair due to a lack of consultation. 

That the tribunal incorrectly concluded that he was not disabled at the relevant time. 

The EAT found as follows: 

1. Permanent Employment Claim: The EAT upheld the ET’s decision that Dr Moghaddam remained a fixed-term employee and that the renewal of his contract was justified based on objective grounds, namely the availability of grant funding. 
2. Whistleblowing Detriments: The EAT found that the ET failed to fully consider whether the protected disclosures materially influenced the detriments alleged by Dr Moghaddam, including the failure to seek further funding for his work. This aspect of the case was remitted to a new tribunal for reconsideration. 
3. Procedural Unfair Dismissal: The EAT held that the ET incorrectly applied the Polkey principle by concluding that consultation would have made no difference to the outcome. The procedural unfair dismissal claim was remitted to a new tribunal for further review. 
4. Disability Claim: The EAT dismissed the appeal on this ground, agreeing with the ET’s finding that Dr Moghaddam was not disabled at the relevant time as defined under the Equality Act 2010. 

Implications for Trade Unions

This case underscores the importance of employers adhering to fair consultation procedures when dismissing employees on fixed-term contracts, especially where whistleblowing and mental health issues are involved. For union representatives, it highlights the need for vigilance in ensuring that workers’ rights are upheld, particularly regarding procedural fairness and the handling of whistleblowing claims. The remittal of key aspects of this case serves as a reminder of the need for comprehensive examination of whether disclosures influence employment decisions and whether adequate consultation occurs before dismissals. 

Conclusion

 The remittal of parts of Dr Moghaddam’s case for reconsideration highlights the ongoing scrutiny of whistleblowing claims and the procedural fairness of dismissals. Union members working under fixed-term contracts, particularly in academia, should be mindful of how such issues are handled, and ensure that proper processes are followed when employment decisions are made.