• See more Daily Mail on Google - save us as a Preferred Source

A university lecturer who was sacked after using a homophobic slur, referring to women in his class as 'females' and calling one student a 'troublesome trans kid' has lost a fight against his dismissal.

Film-maker Russell Cherrington was working as a senior film studies lecturer at the University of Derby in 2023 when four students complained about his 'misogynistic', 'transphobic' and 'divisive' language during some classes.

He has now failed at his bid at an employment tribunal to argue that he was unfairly dismissed.

Staff at Derby university were first alerted to concerns about the lecturer following the annual National Student Survey, which gave the Film and High End TV course poor reviews.

Students were invited to a meeting to discuss their concerns, where several complaints were made about Mr Cherrington's language, prompting an investigation.

The employment tribunal heard the lecturer told one student: 'If you had worn that nail polish back in the day, you would have been called a p**f.'

Students said Mr Cherrington almost exclusively referred to women in the class as 'females' and used 'misogynistic' language, describing the main actress in a music video as 'not attractive enough for the role'.

They said he had also used 'transphobic' language when referring to a student who was transitioning as a 'troublesome trans kid'.

Russell Cherrington has lost an appeal against his dismissal as a lecturer from the University of Derby after using a homophobic slur and misogynistic language during classes

Filmmaker Cherrington was working as a senior film studies lecturer at the University of Derby in 2023 when four students complained about his 'misogynistic,' 'transphobic' and 'divisive' language

He was also accused of ableist language, including an instance when he claimed universities 'were becoming a care home for people with disabilities'.

The lecturer, who had a 'previously unblemished disciplinary record', was subsequently dismissed by the university for gross misconduct in April 2024 over his 'inappropriate and unprofessional language'.

He took his fight against being sacked to an employment tribunal, but failed and in May this year challenged that decision before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), arguing that his human right to 'academic freedom of expression' had been violated.

He also claimed his UK employment rights concerning freedom of speech in the academic context were not upheld.

But EAT judge Mr Justice Cavanagh ruled against him, finding that there was nothing wrong with the lower tribunal's decision to dismiss his claim.

The judge said the professor heading the university disciplinary panel found that 'despite having received relevant training, Mr Cherrington had engaged in behaviour towards the students that was discriminatory, and created an unsafe learning environment, and there could be no confidence that the behaviour would not be repeated'.

He had recommended he be dismissed due to his 'lack of insight into his actions,' he said, adding: 'He concluded that he had no confidence that the appellant could return to his role without the risk of further incidents occurring.'

At the initial hearing, Mr Cherrington had provided 'a list of eight students who he said could speak to his teaching and how he treated students' in opposition to the four who had complained.

However these students were not contacted by the university, the judge said, because the professor heading the panel 'did not consider that he should weigh what might have been positive accounts of the appellant against the allegations of inappropriate and unprofessional language'.

'The findings... were that the appellant used misogynistic and divisive language, in that he only, or almost exclusively, referred to women in the class as 'females',' he said.

'The appellant had said that he only did this at the start of the semester, because he did not know students' names, and did not do so thereafter.

'The appellant had used misogynistic language, whilst giving feedback about a music video, in that he had said that the main actress was not attractive enough for the role. The appellant had acknowledged that he said something like this but did not see any harm in it.

'The appellant had used transphobic language, when referring to a student who was transitioning as a 'troublesome trans kid'. The appellant had denied using this phrase, but had acknowledged that he had used the example of a student who was transitioning as an analogy to suggest that, regardless of background, he would help students as long as they do the work.

'The appellant had used ableist language in that, when reviewing a script for a project development module involving a character with autism, the appellant had remarked that universities were becoming a care home for people with disabilities. The appellant had denied using these words.

'The appellant had said, jokingly, "If you had worn that nail polish back in the day, you would have been called a p**f." The appellant admitted that he said this, but as a joke.'

Before going to the employment tribunal, Mr Cherrington had appealed to a university panel made up of three independent governors, but they dismissed his case.

Appealing, Mr Cherrington argued that the lower tribunal decision was wrong because it had not taken into account his rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects academic freedom of expression.

Although he had not raised it in his evidence, he argued that the tribunal should have considered the point of its own volition.

Dismissing his challenge to the employment tribunal decision, Mr Justice Cavanagh said tribunals are not required to consider the Human Rights Convention 'as a matter of course' in every unfair dismissal case.

And as well as not appearing in Mr Cherrington's case, the potential human rights issue had not 'shouted out' from his case papers, he continued, going on to refuse to hear it as a new point on appeal.

He went on to dismiss his other complaints about freedom of speech along with his appeal as a whole, saying: 'The ET considered whether the appellant's dismissal was in breach of the university's freedom of speech obligations and decided that it was not.

'The ET was plainly well aware that the university had a duty to promote and protect freedom of speech for university employees.

'The appeal is dismissed.'