Female engineering lecturer who was rejected for promotion twice in choices ‘tainted by intercourse’ wins £35k payout

A senior female lecturer at a prestigious university who was rejected for a promotion because ‘she was a woman’ has won over £35,000 at an employment tribunal. 

Dr Eliane Bodanese, an engineering lecturer at Queen Mary University, was twice rejected for a promotion which was instead given to a male colleague. 

This was despite her ‘exemplary’ work and bringing in over £130,000 more than her male colleague for the University as a project leader. 

She was judged to have had a lower level of research – yet Dr Bodanese said this was due to her maternity leave which meant she was unable to secure further grants. 

After taking her case to an employment tribunal in East London, it was judged that she was underpaid as the decisions had been ‘tainted by sex’ – and she has now won £35,500. 

Dr Bodanese started working for the university as a teaching and research academic and lecturer in 2003, and she was promoted to senior lecturer in 2012. 

She is currently a Senior Lecturer in the School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) within the Faculty of Science and Engineering. 

Dr Bodanese took a year of maternity leave between 2013 and 2014. After this period, the academic said that she struggled to ‘obtain grants for research projects and suffered from a lack of support to restart her research’. 

This was confirmed by her manager through his appraisals, which stated that she had experienced a large volume of teaching requirements which had not allowed her to develop her own research. 

In March 2021, Dr Bodanese made a pay rise application through the University’s staff bonus scheme – which was rejected. 

She was told she had applied for the wrong scheme despite being advised by the vice principal of the faculty, Professor Wen Wang. 

The university said that a male colleague who engaged in ‘like work’ to Dr Bodanese had received a promotion through the same scheme. 

Dr John Schormans received three promotions while working at the University – in 2006, 2015 and 2017. 

Employment Judge Catrin Lewis said that ‘the University accepted that it was possible for [Dr Bodanese] to have been considered for a bonus under the scheme’. 

The judge said: ‘The [university] has not explained why she was not so considered despite her application setting out the type of exceptional work that met the example of what might warrant a bonus, and in the absence of any clear evidence in her comparator’s application which would fit the criteria for a bonus.’ 

In January 2022, Dr Bodanese attempted again to apply for a promotion. 

This application was then rejected with the reasoning that her ‘performance in the research aspect of her role was deemed unsuitable’ and that she did not go ‘above and beyond’ as a senior lecturer. 

Dr Bodanese submitted a formal grievance about her applications, triggering an investigation. 

An email sent by Professor Wang was shown during the investigation in which he said that there was a minimum expectation on research contribution, and the faculty panel had raised concerns of a lack of evidence of an active research project. 

Dr Bodanese said that after her maternity leave, she had not been able to get a research grant, but her quality of research had been exemplary. 

Employment Judge Lewis said: ‘In respect of the impact of the publications, the quality of the research and also the number of citations, there were more citations in the previous five years for her research than for Dr Schormans. 

‘Looking at where they had been project leader she referred to five grants which brought in £732,000 for the university – in his application Dr Schormans only referred to being principle investigator in three grants, which brought in approximately £600,000. 

‘Dr Bodanese believed she had more citations in what she described as higher impact journals and brought in more money. 

‘The only way Professor Wang could not see that was if he had not read her application properly, and she maintains that he did not give her application proper consideration because she was a woman.’

Regarding the second application, Judge Lewis said: ‘I am satisfied that Dr Schormans was assessed more generously by the panel considering his applications than Dr Bodanese was by the panel considering hers. 

‘I am also satisfied that the alternative criteria introduced by Professor Wang are tainted by sex. 

‘She has provided cogent evidence that the criteria applied by Professor Wang have a disparate negative impact on women, due to the effect of taking maternity leave on their research profile and career, and that women are less likely to have live grants, because they have taken maternity leave or have had breaks in their research as a result. 

‘Professor Uhlig confirmed that [Dr Bodanese] was put at a disadvantage by the research requirement due to the impact on her research of having taken maternity leave. 

‘I find that the requirement to have an active research grant or have been the primary investigator in the grant in the previous five years did put women at a disadvantage due to the effect of maternity leave, and that is tainted by sex.’ 

Dr Bodanese also said that she had been directly and indirectly discriminated against because of her sex, but these claims were dismissed. 

She claimed there was a comment made that she should not be on the research side and should be on the teaching side as a lecturer. 

She said that while there were 31 senior male lecturers and 22 senior female lecturers, there was only one woman at the top of the pay scale – while 14 were men. 

Judge Lewis said: ‘I am satisfied that the “bunching” or clustering of women at the top of the scale could also be consistent with a form of glass ceiling – as suggested by Dr Bodenese – where the female lecturers are hitting the cap on Senior Lecturer pay and not progressing to the grades beyond.’ 

However, she did not win her sex discrimination cases. 

Dr Bodenese won her equal pay case, winning £30,724, as well as any pension contributions, which amounted to a total of £35,500. 

Queen Mary University was contacted for comment.