Victimisation after discrimination complaint

Short answer

Possibly, but not automatically. Being treated worse after making a discrimination complaint can amount to victimisation under the Equality Act 2010, but only if specific legal conditions are met. The key questions are whether your complaint counts as a “protected act”, whether you have suffered a “detriment”, and whether the detriment was because of the protected act. Simply feeling that things got worse, or that staff are now unfriendly, is not enough on its own.

The legal test for victimisation

Victimisation is defined in section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. A person victimises you if they subject you to a detriment because you have done, or they believe you have done or may do, a “protected act”. Universities and other higher education institutions are specifically covered: under section 91 the responsible body of a further or higher education institution must not victimise a student.

There are three elements you would need to establish.

1. A protected act. This includes bringing a claim or complaint under the Equality Act, giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under the Act, making an allegation that someone has breached the Act, or doing anything else in connection with the Act. Making a genuine complaint that you have been discriminated against, harassed or victimised at university is a classic protected act. Importantly, the complaint does not have to succeed, and it does not even have to be well founded, provided it was made in good faith. However, giving false evidence or information, or making a false allegation, is not protected if it was done in bad faith.

2. A detriment. This means being put at some disadvantage or being treated in a way that a reasonable person in your position would regard as detrimental. It does not have to be a formal sanction. Examples in a university context could include being marked more harshly without justification, being excluded from opportunities, having support withdrawn, being subjected to disciplinary action, being ignored or frozen out by staff in a way that affects your studies, or having a complaint handled in a deliberately obstructive way. Unjustified less favourable treatment can qualify, but trivial or purely subjective grievances may not.

3. Causation. The detriment must be because of the protected act. This is usually the hardest part to prove. You must show a link between your complaint and the worse treatment, not just that the worse treatment happened afterwards. Timing can be relevant evidence, but “after” does not automatically mean “because of”. The treatment need not be consciously motivated by the complaint, but the protected act must have had a material influence on the decision-maker.

Why an alternative explanation matters

Before concluding this is victimisation, it is worth considering whether there is an ordinary, lawful explanation for the treatment. Universities apply academic and procedural rules, and worse outcomes can have innocent causes. For example, a lower mark might reflect the actual quality of the work, disciplinary action might follow a genuine breach of regulations, and delays might reflect ordinary administrative backlogs. The institution will often argue that the treatment would have happened regardless of your complaint. Your task, if you want to establish victimisation, is to point to facts that make the complaint a real reason for the treatment, such as comments referring to your complaint, a marked change in attitude from the specific people you complained about, inconsistency with how others are treated, or departures from normal procedure that coincide with your complaint.

If the worse treatment genuinely has nothing to do with your complaint, it will not be victimisation even though it followed the complaint in time.

Evidence to gather

Because causation is central, contemporaneous evidence is very valuable. It is sensible to:

1. Keep a dated record of the original complaint and exactly what you alleged, so you can show it was a protected act made in good faith.

2. Record each instance of worse treatment with dates, what happened, who was involved, and how it disadvantaged you.

3. Preserve emails, messages, marks, feedback, meeting notes and any comments that link the treatment to your complaint.

4. Note any comparison with how other students in a similar position are treated, which can help show the treatment was not routine.

Practical steps and routes to resolution

Consider addressing this in a sensible order rather than jumping straight to litigation.

1. Internal complaint or grievance. Raise the victimisation through the university’s internal complaints procedure, referring specifically to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 and setting out the protected act, the detriment and the link between them. Universities are expected to have policies dealing with this. Exhausting the internal process is usually necessary before external routes are open.

2. Students’ union or advice service. Many students’ unions have advisers who can support you through the internal process and help you frame the complaint effectively.

3. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA). If you study at a qualifying higher education institution in England or Wales and remain dissatisfied after the internal process, you can complain to the OIA. The OIA can consider complaints involving discrimination and victimisation, although it cannot make a formal legal finding that the university discriminated against or victimised you, and it cannot consider matters of pure academic judgment. Its process is free to students and less adversarial than court.

4. County court claim. A claim for victimisation in further or higher education under the Equality Act is brought in the county court in England and Wales, not the employment tribunal (the tribunal route applies to employment cases, which is a common point of confusion). There are strict time limits for bringing such a claim, generally six months from the act complained of, though this can be affected by the circumstances, so it is important not to let time run out while pursuing internal or OIA routes. Court action carries cost, delay and litigation risk, and should usually be a later step rather than a first response.

How different facts change the answer

If your original complaint was made in bad faith or was knowingly false, it will not be a protected act, and later adverse treatment would not be victimisation under the Act. If the worse treatment is trivial and would not disadvantage a reasonable person, it may not amount to a detriment. If the university can show the treatment would have happened anyway for genuine academic or procedural reasons unconnected to your complaint, causation fails. Conversely, if there is a clear change in treatment from the very people you complained about, close in time, without a proper independent explanation, and inconsistent with how others are treated, that strengthens a victimisation case considerably.

Missing facts that would help

To assess this properly it would help to know what your original complaint actually alleged and whether it referred to a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, exactly what the worse treatment consists of and who is responsible for it, when the complaint was made and when the treatment started, and whether the university has offered any explanation for the treatment. These details determine whether all three elements of the section 27 test are likely to be satisfied.