Fixed-term contract expiry: discrimination claims fail at Middlesex University
A work placement officer with 7 months' service lost her claims of discrimination, harassment, and unfair dismissal after her fixed-term contract expired. The tribunal found no evidence of unlawful treatment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a work placement officer from 7 May 2019 to 6 December 2019.
- The claimant's contract was a fixed-term contract due to expire on 6 December 2019.
- The claimant alleged discrimination, harassment, and victimisation based on age, race, and sex.
- The tribunal found the claimant lacked credibility and the allegations were without merit.
- The claimant's employment ended due to the expiry of the fixed-term contract, not discrimination.
Timeline
-
Claimant signed employment contract
The claimant signed a fixed-term contract starting 7 May 2019 and ending 6 December 2019.
-
Employment started
The claimant began work as a work placement officer at Middlesex University.
-
Alleged public abuse
The claimant alleged Ms Rodriguez publicly abused her, but could not recall what was said.
-
Alleged harassment comments
The claimant alleged Ms Rodriguez made comments about her being cold and 'back in the day'.
-
Whole school meeting
The claimant alleged she was not invited to sit with Ms Rodriguez at a meeting.
-
Claimant submitted document to neutral management enquiry
The claimant handed a document to Mrs Malvankar, which she claimed was a protected act.
-
Email reminder of contract expiry
The respondent sent an email reminding the claimant of the fixed-term contract expiry.
-
Claimant submitted grievance
The claimant submitted a grievance alleging discrimination.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's fixed-term contract expired and her employment ended.
-
ET1 claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to direct discrimination, harassment, and victimisation based on age, race, and sex, and whether her dismissal was unfair or a breach of contract.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the work placement officer against Middlesex University and a colleague.
The key reason was that the tribunal found the claimant's evidence lacked credibility. The allegations of public abuse, harassment comments, and exclusion from a meeting were not supported by reliable evidence. The fixed-term contract expired naturally, and the respondent's actions were not motivated by any protected characteristic.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Fixed-term employees have fewer rights to challenge non-renewal if the contract simply expires, unless the reason is discriminatory or automatically unfair.
- Tribunals assess credibility carefully; inconsistent or unsupported allegations can undermine the entire case.
- To succeed in discrimination claims, you need evidence linking the treatment to a protected characteristic, not just a belief that it occurred.
A short-lived role, a long list of allegations
This case shows the difficulty of bringing multiple discrimination claims based on a short period of employment. The claimant worked as a work placement officer at Middlesex University for just seven months on a fixed-term contract. When the contract expired, she alleged she had been subjected to discrimination, harassment, and victimisation on grounds of age, race, and sex.
The tribunal heard allegations of public abuse, comments about being 'cold' and 'back in the day', and exclusion from a meeting. However, the claimant could not recall key details, and the tribunal found her evidence lacked credibility. The respondent's witnesses were preferred.
What the employer did right
Middlesex University had a clear fixed-term contract with a defined end date. It reminded the claimant of the expiry in advance and processed the end of employment in line with the contract terms. The tribunal accepted that the contract was not renewed simply because it had run its course, not because of any protected characteristic.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that fixed-term employees cannot automatically claim unfair dismissal when their contract ends, provided the reason is the expiry itself. Discrimination claims require solid evidence linking the treatment to a protected characteristic. Without that, even multiple allegations will fail. For employees, it underscores the importance of keeping detailed records and being able to articulate clearly what happened and why it was discriminatory.
Similar cases
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Former employee wins discrimination and holiday pay claims against PMP Recruitment
A former employee of PMP Recruitment Limited succeeded in claims of direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of age, race, and sex, and was awarded over £19,000 in compensation.
Former employee awarded notice pay after tribunal extends time for late claim
A tribunal extended time for an unfair dismissal claim filed 11 days late, but struck it out for lack of merit. The claimant succeeded only on a breach of contract claim for notice pay, receiving £948.78.
Finance Director with 24 years' service wins constructive dismissal and discrimination claim
A tribunal found that a finance director with 24 years' service was constructively dismissed and subjected to sex and race discrimination after being passed over for managing director and told her chairman had lost confidence in her. She was awarded £112,007.