An employment tribunal ruled in favor of Prof Wyn Evans, who had raised concerns about treatment of female staff at Cambridge’s Institute of Astronomy. Evans had testified that the institute suffered from systemic misogyny, citing cases where women in the department were pressured out of positions or subjected to aggressive behavior from senior faculty members.
The tribunal found that the university responded to Evans’s protected disclosures by subjecting him to a nearly two-year investigation based on allegations lacking specific details or supporting evidence. Judges determined that Cambridge deliberately avoided considering Evans’s complaints under its formal whistleblowing policy and instead viewed him as a reputational threat. The tribunal concluded this represented an institutional resistance to addressing his concerns.
Employment Judge Graham upheld 11 of 14 alleged detriments against the university and individual respondents, including the vice-chancellor. The investigation into Evans was deemed contrary to natural justice, baseless, and likely filed in retaliation. The tribunal also identified concerning patterns in how the university handled the matter, noting that senior leadership figures relied heavily on HR and administrative staff to prepare responses, with some documents drafted by the individuals being complained about.
The judgment specifically criticized the vice-chancellor’s testimony about drafting a response to Evans, concluding the document was prepared solely by the university registrary and presented to leadership as a fait accompli. Judges described ghostwriting as a consistent and troubling theme throughout the case. The tribunal also rejected suggestions from the university’s legal representative that Evans’s emotional testimony about a former colleague’s death was insincere.
The ruling arrives during a challenging period for Cambridge’s leadership, following the recent departure of the university’s youngest professor amid plagiarism allegations. Evans, who previously campaigned for the chancellorship on an anti-bullying platform, has questioned whether the vice-chancellor remains capable of leading the institution. The university stated it is reviewing the judgment in detail. A further hearing to determine damages is scheduled for January.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI