And speaking of what could and should have been done brings me to the case case of Sharma v University of Portsmouth, in which the Employment Tribunal considered whether failing to reappoint a lecturer with Indian Heritage amounted to race discrimination.

Dr Sharma held a five-year fixed-term contract as associate head of organisational studies and human resources management at the University of Portsmouth. While there was no formal expectation of renewal, it was widely understood that staff were generally reappointed if they wished to continue their position.

After her contract ended, she reapplied for the role and was reinterviewed for the post, as one of two final candidates for the job. The choice was between her and a White British woman. Although one of the panellists thought Dr Sharma was the top candidate, the other two panel members, one being Dr Sharma’s line manager, voted for the other candidate.

After being unsuccessful, Dr Sharma requested feedback from the panel, which was not provided. Because of this, she subsequently raised a grievance suggesting that her race had influenced the decision not to reappoint her. From this, she also alleged that her line manager had treated her less favourably than the white candidate.

In the past, her relationship with her line manager, Professor Rees, had been difficult. This included situations where he had asked her to report on work-related issues whilst on bereavement leave following her father’s death; she was refused further support whilst her infant son was critically ill, and he had discouraged her from taking the senior fellow of higher education academy qualification. He also failed to inform her that her role was being re-advertised. In contrast to her treatment, other white colleagues who had similar situations received support from Professor Rees.

The university dismissed Dr Sharma’s grievance, and therefore Dr Sharma brought a claim for Race Discrimination before the ET.

The ET began by addressing the statistics concerning the reappointment of white senior academics compared to BAME comparators. This found that whilst only 8% of white individuals hadn’t been reappointed, 100% of BAME candidates were not reappointed. Dr Sharma was only one of two employees who were not automatically reappointed. The ET saw no evidence that the other candidate was more suitable for the position, and therefore the ET was unable to find evidence that the selection process was not motivated by race.

It agreed that Professor Rees had treated Dr Sharma differently to her white colleagues. They believed that the university should have looked for a valid explanation as to why Dr Sharma was not reappointed. Failure to do so showed a shortcoming of the University’s Equality Policy.

Following this, the ET further looked at the treatment Dr Sharma received during her employment, and they felt that Professor Rees had treated her differently as a result from his ‘subconscious bias’, noting that white colleagues had received more favourable treatment in comparable situations. The ET concluded that this influenced this decision to not reappoint her, ruling that Dr Sharma had faced Race Discrimination.

She was awarded £286,702 for general and special damages, with damages for loss of pension yet to be determined.

This case highlights the importance of actively addressing unconscious bias and ensuring fair, transparent employment practices. Employers must apply equality and diversity policies consistently and must be able to justify decisions with objective criteria.

Regular training on discrimination is essential to identify and address potential disparities. Grievance procedures should be handled seriously and fairly and should ensure that feedback is given to those who request it. Employers should recognise that discrimination can be subtle and should ensure that the risk of discrimination is reduced, and a more inclusive environment is prioritised.