LONDON: Portsmouth university must pay at least £450,000 for “subconscious” discrimination against a female Indian academic “who speaks with a marked Indian accent and cadence”, a Southampton employment tribunal said. The tribunal found Kajal Sharma was racially discriminated against by her line manager at the university, Prof Gary Rees, after he failed to reappoint her to the same role after five years in the job for no apparent reason and recruited a white woman with no experience in that role to replace her.
“His reluctance to recognise the skills and abilities and aspirations of Sharma, and his failure to support and encourage her in the way he supported other members of white staff, points towards a subconscious or unconscious bias,” the tribunal found, adding this bias meant “his failure to reappoint her was an act of race discrimination”.Sharma was on a five-year contract, working as associate head of organisational studies and human resource management which ended on Dec 31, 2020, and she had to reapply for the position. Rees did not inform her the role was being advertised internally and when she was rejected and asked for feedback, none was provided. The tribunal concluded this was because “he was well aware the process had not been fair and fully transparent.”
Rees also discouraged her from applying to become a senior fellow, and failed to provide her with the support when her baby was critically ill. The tribunal found no evidence of her falling short in her role.
“His reluctance to recognise the skills and abilities and aspirations of Sharma, and his failure to support and encourage her in the way he supported other members of white staff, points towards a subconscious or unconscious bias,” the tribunal found, adding this bias meant “his failure to reappoint her was an act of race discrimination”.Sharma was on a five-year contract, working as associate head of organisational studies and human resource management which ended on Dec 31, 2020, and she had to reapply for the position. Rees did not inform her the role was being advertised internally and when she was rejected and asked for feedback, none was provided. The tribunal concluded this was because “he was well aware the process had not been fair and fully transparent.”
Rees also discouraged her from applying to become a senior fellow, and failed to provide her with the support when her baby was critically ill. The tribunal found no evidence of her falling short in her role.