Fixed-term contract not renewed after long-term sickness: tribunal dismisses claims and awards costs
An LSE Fellow who alleged sexual harassment by a student and then never returned to work has lost his unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and victimisation claims. The tribunal found his allegations were dishonest and made in bad faith, and ordered him to pay the LSE's costs on an indemnity basis.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #fixed-term-contract
- #disability-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #dishonest-allegations
- #bad-faith
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an LSE Fellow from 1 September 2011 to 2 September 2014 under a fixed-term contract.
- On 12 December 2012, the claimant was informed of a formal harassment complaint by a student, Ms D, and he never returned to work.
- The claimant alleged Ms D made unwanted sexual advances, but the tribunal found this allegation was dishonest and made in bad faith.
- The claimant's contract was not renewed after three years due to his long-term absence and breakdown of trust and confidence.
- The tribunal found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of success on any of his claims and that he had acted vexatiously and unreasonably.
- The respondent was awarded costs on an indemnity basis, to be assessed by the County Court.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as LSE Fellow in the Department of Management for a fixed term of one year.
-
Contract extended and new role
Claimant's contract extended to 2 September 2014; also appointed Deputy Academic Dean for one year.
-
Incident in Boston
Claimant alleges Ms D made unwanted sexual advances; tribunal later found this allegation dishonest.
-
Ms D resigned and made allegations
Ms D resigned and emailed allegations of improper conduct against the claimant.
-
Claimant informed of formal complaint
Claimant told of Ms D's formal harassment complaint; he stated he could 'give no more' and never returned to work.
-
First formal grievance by claimant
Claimant's solicitors sent a grievance letter alleging sex discrimination; tribunal found it based on false allegations.
-
Ms D's grievance outcome
Respondent found Ms D's complaint 'not proven' due to claimant's lack of engagement.
-
Claimant's grievance outcome
Mr Webb issued report on claimant's grievances, upholding some but rejecting most; claimant appealed.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's fixed-term contract expired and was not renewed; he had been absent for 21 months and had accepted a job at Ashridge Business School.
-
Full merits hearing commenced
43-day hearing began; claimant represented by his son, Mr G Piepenbrock.
-
Liability judgment
All claims dismissed; tribunal found claimant dishonest and claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
-
Costs judgment
Claimant ordered to pay respondent's costs on indemnity basis; detailed assessment in County Court.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was unfair, whether he was discriminated against because of something arising from his disability, and whether he was victimised for doing protected acts.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and victimisation.
The key reason was that the claimant's central allegation—that a student made unwanted sexual advances—was found to be dishonest and made in bad faith. The tribunal also found that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of success on any of his claims and that he had acted vexatiously and unreasonably.
No compensation was awarded. Instead, the respondent was awarded costs on an indemnity basis, to be assessed by the County Court.
Lessons & takeaways
- Fixed-term employees can be fairly dismissed when their contract expires, even if they are on long-term sick leave, provided the employer has a substantial reason and acts reasonably.
- Making dishonest allegations in a grievance or tribunal claim can lead to costs orders against you, even if you are an individual litigant.
- Long-term absence does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the employer has lost trust and confidence due to the employee's conduct.
- Representing yourself (or being assisted by a family member) does not protect you from costs if the tribunal finds you have acted vexatiously or unreasonably.
When a fixed-term contract ends during long-term sickness
This case shows that even a long-serving employee (three years) on a fixed-term contract can be fairly dismissed when the contract expires, if the employer has a substantial reason and acts reasonably. The LSE Fellow had been absent from work for 21 months following a student's harassment complaint. He never returned after being told of the complaint on 12 December 2012, stating he could 'give no more'. His contract was not renewed in September 2014.
The dishonest allegation that derailed the case
The tribunal found that the claimant's core allegation—that the student made unwanted sexual advances—was dishonest and made in bad faith. This finding undermined all his claims. The tribunal concluded that the LSE had lost trust and confidence in the claimant, not because of his disability, but because of his conduct, including making false allegations against colleagues.
What the LSE did right
The LSE investigated the student's complaint (finding it 'not proven' due to the claimant's lack of engagement), dealt with the claimant's grievances, and ultimately decided not to renew his contract. The tribunal held that the decision was within the range of reasonable responses. The LSE also successfully argued that the claimant's claims had no reasonable prospect of success and that he had acted vexatiously, leading to a costs order on an indemnity basis.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employees on fixed-term contracts should be aware that non-renewal can be a fair dismissal if the employer has a substantial reason (such as loss of trust and confidence) and follows a fair process. Making dishonest allegations can not only lose your case but also result in significant costs. The case also highlights that tribunals will scrutinise claims of disability discrimination carefully, especially where the alleged discrimination is linked to the employee's own conduct rather than their disability.
Similar cases
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Bid Manager with 12 years' service awarded £964k after disability discrimination and victimisation
A tribunal found that Mears Group plc unfairly dismissed a Bid Manager with spinal injuries and victimised her for raising concerns about reasonable adjustments. She was awarded £964,465.37.
Finance officer with 23 years' service dismissed after 32 months' sick leave: claims struck out
A tribunal struck out claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and victimisation brought by a finance officer with 23 years' service who was dismissed after 32 months' sick leave following a cancer diagnosis.
In-house solicitor loses constructive dismissal claim against RMT union
An employment tribunal dismissed all 133 claims brought by an in-house solicitor against the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, including allegations of assault, constructive dismissal, and disability discrimination.