Dr T Piepenbrock v The London School of Economics and Political Science: 2200239/2015
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 September 2023 |
| Date | 27 September 2023 |
| Citation | 2200239/2015 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 22 June 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Number: 2200239/2015 (v)
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Dr Theodore Piepenbrock
v
The London School of
Economics and political
Science
Heard at: London Central as a video hearing
On: February 2022: 14-18, and 28
March 2022: 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, 21- 25, 28 – 31
April 2022: 1
Chambers: April 2022: 4-8, 19-22, and
May 2022, 3-5.
Before: EJ G Hodgson
Mr D Kendall
Mr D Clay
Representation
For the Claimant: Mr G Piepenbrock and Dr Piepenbrock
For the Respondent: Mr P Michell, counsel
JUDGMENT
1. The claim of unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.
2. The claims of discrimination because of something arising in
consequence of disability (section 15 Equality Act 2010) fail and are
dismissed.
3. The claims of victimisation (section 27 Equality Act 2010) fail and are
dismissed.
Case Number: 2200239/2015 (v)
- 2 -
REASONS
Introduction
1.1 The claimant presented a claim to the London Central employment
tribunal on 26 January 2015. He brought claims of unfair dismissal,
disability discrimination, and victimisation. The claim was stayed for a
long period, whilst the High Court considered his personal injury claim.
The employment claim was heard over a total period of 43 days starting
on 14 February 2022 and ending on 6 May 2022.
1.2 It may assist the reader if we give an overview. The claimant states that
he had been a highly successful international architectural/structural
engineer responsible for designing some of the world's tallest buildings
and longest bridges. Sometime around 2000, he decided to pursue a
career in academia. He earned his MBA, MSc, and PhD degrees at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). His first academic
appointment after MIT was at the LSE. On 1 September 2011, the
claimant was employed as an LSE fellow in the department of
management; this was for an initial fixed term of one year. This was a
development role and was focused on teaching, albeit he had an
opportunity to undertake his own research. The appointment was later
extended to a total period of three years. On 1 September 2012, the
claimant was also appointed to the role of deputy academic dean in the
new executive global masters in management programme. This was a
largely administrative position for a fixed term of one year.
1.3 In the first year, the claimant's teaching was largely well received, leading
to his winning an LSE prize for his teaching.
1.4 One of his students was Ms D. She became his graduate teaching
assistant from September to November 2012, when she resigned. In
November 2012, the claimant was undertaking a lecture tour in Boston
and Seattle in the United States. Ms D accompanied him. The claimant
alleges that Ms D had become infatuated with him. He alleges that on 12
November 2012, she invited him to her hotel room and greeted him at the
door in a state of undress. He alleges that he spurned her sexual
advances. He alleges that this led to his having extensive conversations
with her, both in Boston and later in a hotel room in Seattle, during the
early hours of the morning. Whilst the outline of the events is agreed, the
detail is disputed.
1.5 It is common ground that Ms D contacted the LSE, either directly or
through her mother, and the LSE agreed to pay for a flight so that she
could return from Seattle to her mother in New York. It is common ground
security guards attended at the hotel room which she was occupying and
ensured her safe passage from the hotel.
Case Number: 2200239/2015 (v)
- 3 -
1.6 Ms D resigned by email of 18 November 2012. In this email she made
allegations of improper conduct against the claimant. On 11 December
2012, Ms D sent a formal complaint alleging harassment.
1.7 The claimant was told of the fact of the formal complaint on 12 December
2012. This caused a rapid collapse of his mental health. By the evening
of 12 December 2012, the claimant stated, by email, that he could "give no
more." The claimant never returned to work. The claimant did not engage
with the LSE, in relation to his teaching duties, in any constructive or
professional way, thereafter.
1.8 At the end of his fixed term period of employment, on 2 September 2014,
the claimant was dismissed. Between 12 December 2012 and 2
September 2014, the claimant made numerous complaints and lodged
numerous grievances against the LSE's employees. It was the claimant's
case that the actions of the respondent caused him personal injury by
causing depression.
1.9 In addition, he says treatment of him amounted to disability discrimination,
victimisation, and unfair dismissal. It is his case that the respondent
decided at an early stage that he was guilty of sexual harassment,
punished him, and resolved to dismiss him. The claimant alleges that the
respondent acted as a harassment machine, consistently victimised him,
and dismissed him as an act of victimisation. It is those claims that we
now consider.
The Issues
2.1 The issues were defined during the hearing on 5 May 2021, when the
claimant’s application to amend was decided. The issues were supplied
to the parties and the content, as given to the parties, is set out below.
1
The claims
2.2 The claimant brings the following claims:
2.2.1 Unfair dismissal contrary to section 94(1) Employment Rights Act
1996.
2.2.2 Victimisation contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010.
2.2.3 Discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 Equality
Act 2010.
Disability
2.3 The claimant alleges he is disabled by virtue of anxiety and depression.
He put it originally as follows:
1
Minor clarifications and typographical amendments have been made were helpful.
To continue reading
Request your trial