UL lecturer claims he didn’t secure tenure as college failed to consider his dyslexia

UL's decision, he claims, will severely damage his career and personal life

Mon, 06 Dec, 2021 - 20:16

Ann O’Loughlin

A lecturer has claimed before the High Court that he failed to secure a full-time post at University of Limerick because it allegedly didn’t consider his dyslexia.

Dr Andrew Stewart who lectures at the UL Department of Physics and Energy has brought a case to the High Court. As a result of UL's decision, he claims that his employment at the university will terminate at the end of December.

The High Court heard that since 2016 he has been employed at the college as a 'lecturer below the bar'. Earlier this year he applied for tenure, or a full-time position, known as progression across the merit bar at the university.

He claims that unless such a promotion is achieved by a lecturer 'below the bar' during the fifth year of their employment at the university, their employment contract will not be renewed. He claims that in its decision last May, UL denied him that position.

Dr Stewart's claims

He sought an internal review of that decision. However, in September, UL's governing authority upheld the original refusal. He claims that in reaching the decision to refuse his application the university failed to consider factors including that he is dyslexic as well as having a medical condition.

He claims that such a failure amounts to breaches of the university’s own published policies and procedures regarding the granting of tenure for academic staff.

He claims that UL's own Equality and Diversity Policy states that all applications for career progression will be assessed fairly and regardless of any disability. He claims that he just missed out on obtaining a score necessary to obtain promotion.

He claims his dyslexia, which was a relevant matter, should have been considered by UL. As a dyslexic he claims he requires substantial time to craft an application in such a way to clearly demonstrate his teaching ability and curriculum development.

He claims the appeal was determined by persons who were members of the Governing Authority who had already decided on his case at first instance.

He claims that when he applied online for the promotion the application form, created by UL, did not include any appropriate space to specify any disability which he claims should be considered as part of UL's obligations as an equal employer. This meant he could not raise his dyslexia with the college.

He submitted that when the committee that heard his appeal issued his determination it held that it was Dr Stewart's own decision not to include reference to his disability as part of the application process. He also claims that he has been denied his right to fair procedures.

Consequences of UL's decision

The failure to obtain tenure means that his contract of employment is due to be terminated at the end of the month. UL's decision, he claims, will severely damage his career and personal life. He claims he will have to look for a new job at a new location.

Arising out of that decision Dr Stewart has brought High Court judicial review proceedings against UL, where he seeks an order quashing the refusal to grant him progression across the merit bar.

He also seeks various declarations including that the decision is invalid because the university failed to consider his intellectual disability when reaching its decision. It is contended this is in breach of UL's obligations under the 1997 Universities Act, and the 1998-2015 Employment Equality Acts.

The matter came before Mr Justice Charles Meenan, who on an ex-parte basis, granted Dr Stewart permission to bring his challenge. The matter will return before the court in January.

The judge also placed a stay on the university's decision to end Dr Stewart's employment, pending further order of the court.

UL, if it wishes, may return to court on notice to the applicant and apply to have that stay lifted, the judge added.