Nottingham Univiersity & Ian Gow found guilty of Race Discrimination
 

GRAPEVINE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The Tribunal found against Mrs Moreehen, Director of Personnel & a Lay Memmber of the Nottingham Tribunal that, “The faxed uestionnaires which she alleged was illegible was certainly not.  She was, in a sense, being awkward with the Claimant”[see, para 5.2.5]. 

The tribunal also found that, “She had been giving evidence about her gathering awareness of the existence of a serial litigant making race discrimination claims against universities”[para 5.2.7]. 

Further the Tribunal found that, “Whenever she made the connection, the phrase “with us” was used by her in a tone of voice which indicated she viewed Mr. Deman as some sort of plague that had just been visited upon the University”[para 5.2.8]. 

 Professor Wright & Professor Bruce and Professor Gow:

“Whereas Professors Greenway and Berry and Ennew saved the university form a far worse fate than may have befallen it, Professor Bruce and Wright quite literally added insult to injury.  To cover up what we believe was conscious victimisation, they portrayed the claimant as not being worth the least consideration.  Professor Bruce’s rating of him as RAE 2 and Professor Wrights as “3B at best” was not in our view only as Professor Ennew admitted “a tad on the harsh side”, it was high handed, malicious, oppressive and insulting” [paragraph 9.6]. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

University of Nottingham & Profesor Ian Gow, P-V-C & Ex Director Sheffield & Nottingham Business Schools

 Mr Suresh Deman has successfully carreid out his own cases against the University of Nottingham & Professor Gow, Director of Business School [Ex- PVC and Present Vice Chancellor of University of Sheffield & Nottingham].  It was most striking, when a Newcastle Tribunal sat in Nottingham for 28 days as Mrs. Morehan, a lay member of the Tribunal was also a Respondent and made findings as follows against a number of senior officers and academics including Professor Gow, Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Director of the Business School and Mrs. Morehan, Director of Personnel and a lay member of the Nottingham Tribunal as follows:

 

Mrs. Morehen, Director of Personnel: The Tribunal found that, “The faxed questionnaires which she alleged was illegible was certainly not.  She was, in a sense, being awkward with the Claimant” [see, paragraph 5.2.5].  The tribunal found that, “She had been giving evidence about her gathering awareness of the existence of a serial litigant making race discrimination claims against universities” [paragraph 5.2.7].  Further the Tribunal found that, “Whenever she made the connection, the phrase “with us” was used by her in a tone of voice which indicated she viewed Mr. Deman as some sort of plague that had just been visited upon the University” [paragraph 5.2.8].  The Tribunal was a bit mild in criticism of Mrs. Morehen because she was a lay member of the Nottingham tribunal but even that criticism speaks volumes, as she perceived Mr. Deman as if the University was attack by a plague. 

 

Mrs. Kaur: Deputy Director of Personnel: “The point is Mrs. Kaur told Mrs. Morehen and one of them told Mrs. Marshall. Mrs. Kaur immediately checked the current job applications to see if Mr. Deman was applying fro anything.  Why? She could not explain. She found two applications (for job 364 and 386 – see later) and she says she told no-one anything.  That is incredible. Why anyone look, and do nothing?  We believe she reported back to Professor Gow of her own initiative" [paragraphs 5.3.4]. The Tribunal found that, “We believe that she told first Mrs. Marshall, possibly Mrs. Morehen and at some stage possibly Professor Gow that she had found applications from this person who has previously taken the Director of School to a Tribunal” [paragraph 6.82].  Further the Tribunal found as follows:

 

“We were disturbed by the evidence relating to job 364 particularly our inability to believe what Mrs. Kaur said about not reporting finding the applications to anyone” [paragraph 8.84].    

 

Professor Wright: They show the Claimant, who is identified as Candidate C for the Economics post, as having an RAE of 4.  In a letter then written by Mr. Mordue to Mr. Titterington the argument was effectively being put forward to Mr. Titterington was that it was ridiculous to say that the University has victimised him for representing Mr. Deman when, in fact, they had long listed Mr. Deman and given him a high rating” [paragraph 6.96].  Then the Tribunal found that, “Professor Wright now says that his rating was a “mistake” somewhere in the chain of communication” [paragraph 6.97]. Further tribunal says, “We do not believe there was any mistake.  Professor Wright was one of the most uncomfortable witnesses we have seen for many years. “… When asked questions about the recruitment exercise and his role in it he was looking out he window and, in words of one of the members, “waffling”.  “…..Professor Wright simply would not answer the Chairman’s question in the way it was put…”We find Professor Wright looked at the Claimant’s past and knowing that it was coming towards the end of an RAE period and  that because he would be in Malaysia and did not have to be retuned anyway, he gave a frank appraisal of 4, that being of the Claimant’s potential.  Now because there is something he is trying to conceal, he is trying to back down from that. We now know what the something is [paragraph 6.98].   

 

“As far Professor Wright’s evidence that the “4” rating was “mistake” Mrs. Marshall says to us that, as far as she is concerned, she transcribed Professor Wright’s post-it notes accurately when giving instructions to the university’s solicitors. We think she would” [paragraph 6.100].

 

It is remotely credible that Professor Wright would not ask what an RR65 questionnaires is?   Indeed it remotely credible that Professor Wright, who had already branded the Claimant as a “serial litigant” would not, in passing at least, have had a conversation with Professor Bruce and Fenn to mention Mr. Deman, particularly at time when Mr. Deman was actively threatening proceedings against the University?” [paragraph 6.110].

 

Professor Wright & Professor Bruce and Professor Gow:

“Whereas Professors Greenway and Berry and Ennew saved the university form a far worse fate than may have befallen it, Professor Bruce and Wright quite literally added insult to injury.  To cover up what we believe was conscious victimisation, they portrayed the claimant as not being worth the least consideration.  Professor Bruce’s rating of him as RAE 2 and Professor Wrights as “3B at best” was not in our view only as Professor Ennew admitted “a tad on the harsh side”, it was high handed, malicious, oppressive and insulting” [paragraph 9.6]. 

In paragraph 6.104 the Tribunal says as follows: “The relevance of this exercise, therefore, is partly in relation to aggravated damages but mainly the insight it gives into decision making generally, which is relevant in other exercises, and the damage which the evasive and equivocal replies of Professor Wright did to the credibility of the respondent on the victimisation issues”.   

 

Paragraphs 6.107- 6.110 “Professor Bruce savaged Mr. Deman’s CV and not in the same way Professor Greenway did. …Our finding in relation to this post is that Professor Gow and Bruce had done nothing the chances of the Claimant being given this job were zero.  But they did not do nothing”.

                              

In paragraph 6.110 it says:

 

“Is it remotely credible that Professor Bruce would not ask what an RR65 questionnaires is?”

In it’s finding the tribunal said Prof Gow:

 

“We are convinced Professor Gow was not only determined that Professor Sinclair would not make an idiosyncratic short listing decision but also determined that whatsoever else was short listed Mr Deman would not be.  He therefore chose panel which would ensure that, briefing Professor Bruce, and then to be certain turning up himself.  We believe Mrs Marshall’s recollection is accurate” [paragraph 8.14].

 

For the Nottingham jobs, meetings were held to draw up shortlists for the three posts. Prof Gow had asked a colleague, Professor Alistair Bruce, to be part of the recruitment process. The tribunal's findings stated: "Professors Gow and Bruce were at those job exercises to make sure Mr Deman did not get on to the shortlist and therefore could not be appointed” [paragraph 8.18].

 

The three-man panel said, Professor Gow need not have said anything against Mr Deman during the selection process. But "his mere presence would have been ample to ensure none of his colleagues would have contemplated short listing Mr Deman for fear of upsetting Prof Gow" [paragraph 8.15].

 

“… We believe arrangements were made by Professor Gow to make doubly certain that the Claimant would not get a job...”[paragraph 6.110].

 

“We find nonsensical explanations for not short-listing Mr. Deman” [paragraph 6.114].

 

“To say therefore that his publications did not “exhibit” appropriate disciplinary orientation is nonsense” [paragraph 6.121]”.