Court rules University of Derby acted lawfully in sacking film studies lecturer, rejecting his free speech defence

A senior lecturer at the University of Derby has lost his bid to overturn his dismissal, after an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the university acted fairly in terminating his appointment over comments deemed “misogynistic”, “transphobic” and “divisive”.

Russell Cherrington, who taught film studies on the university’s Film and High-End TV programme, had challenged his dismissal on the grounds that his remarks were protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression.

The case stemmed from complaints filed by four students, which surfaced following poor course feedback in the National Student Survey. Cherrington was suspended in December 2023, and a subsequent investigation in 2024 identified multiple instances of what the university classified as gross misconduct. He was dismissed in April 2024 for using “inappropriate and unprofessional language”, despite having no prior disciplinary issues.

During proceedings, the tribunal found that Cherrington frequently referred to women in his class as “females”, describing this pattern as misogynistic. It also highlighted a comment he made while assessing a student’s music video, in which he said the lead actress was “not attractive enough for the role”.

Cherrington acknowledged using the term “females”, explaining that he did so because he did not know the students’ names. He also maintained that his critique of the actress was not harmful.

The tribunal further examined remarks he allegedly made to a student about nail polish, suggesting that in the past such appearance might have attracted derogatory labels. Additionally, he was accused of referring to a transitioning student in inappropriate terms, an allegation he denied. He argued that any reference he made was intended to illustrate his willingness to support students from all backgrounds. He also rejected claims that he made insensitive comments about people with disabilities.

At his disciplinary hearing, Cherrington submitted the names of eight students who he said could vouch for his conduct and teaching approach. However, the panel chose not to contact them, stating that positive testimonials would not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations.

After his initial claim was dismissed by an employment tribunal in May, Cherrington took the case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, again arguing that his academic freedom had been infringed.

But in dismissing the appeal, Judge Mr Justice Cavanagh ruled that freedom of expression rights do not automatically apply to every unfair dismissal case. He noted that the original tribunal had properly considered the university’s obligation to uphold free speech and found no breach.

“The tribunal was clearly aware of the university’s duty to protect freedom of speech,” the judge said. “It concluded that the dismissal did not violate those obligations. The appeal is dismissed.”