Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Dismissal of Lecturer Over Inappropriate Language
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal by a former lecturer, confirming his dismissal for gross misconduct was fair despite freedom of speech claims.
• public
EAT Rejects Human Rights Appeal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal by a former University of Derby lecturer, Mr Russell Cherrington, who challenged his dismissal for gross misconduct. The case centred on whether the Employment Tribunal (ET) had erred by failing to consider Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression, and section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986.
Background to the Case
Mr Cherrington was summarily dismissed in May 2024 following an investigation into his conduct towards students. The University found he had used misogynistic, transphobic, and ableist language. Although the appellant had an unblemished prior record, the university concluded that his lack of insight into the impact of his language created an unsafe learning environment.
In his appeal, Mr Cherrington argued that the original tribunal should have considered his academic freedom under Article 10, even though he did not specifically raise this legal point during his initial hearing. He also contended that the tribunal failed to account for statutory protections regarding freedom of speech in universities.
Tribunal Ruling
Mr Justice Cavanagh, presiding over the appeal, rejected these arguments. The EAT found that the Article 10 issue did not "shout out" from the appellant’s case, and tribunals are not required to consider such Convention rights as a matter of course in every unfair dismissal case involving speech.
The judge noted that the appellant’s case was primarily focused on procedural unfairness rather than a challenge based on human rights. Furthermore, the EAT confirmed that the original tribunal acted correctly in considering the university's conduct and policy obligations. The EAT also ruled that failing to specifically reference the 1986 Act did not change the outcome, as the tribunal had already considered the broader context of the university's duty to protect freedom of speech.
The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the EAT concluding that there was no error of law in the original decision.
Read the entire judgment here: Cherrington v University of Derby [2026] EAT 107
