Tribunal: Firm’s witnesses not credible on several evidential points
A paralegal has been awarded £41,000 in damages against a law firm that unfairly dismissed and discriminated against her because she could not work full-time due to disability.
Employment Judge Ficklin in Manchester found that the redundancy process run by Oldham-based Inaaya Solicitors was intended to dismiss Saima Kauser.
The damages included £22,500 for hurt, distress and humiliation.
He was critical too of the evidence of managing director Taher Shad, business development manager Mohammad Shafiq and HR manager Fareena Naz Siddiqi, who between them “effectively make up” the firm’s management team.
“We found the respondent’s witnesses not to be credible on several evidential points,” he explained, such as on how none of them know who had deleted Ms Kauser’s HR records.
“We are also surprised that the respondent’s witnesses were apparently not interested in how such a serious data breach happened, when it happened or who was responsible. We do not accept that we were told the truth about that matter.”
Among the other evidence the tribunal questioned was the claim that nobody could contact the external solicitor who purportedly handled the appeal against the rejection of Ms Kauser’s grievance, with Mr Shad saying he knew nothing more about her than she was a solicitor, as she had done locum work for the firm in the past.
“He must have her contact details and bank details to have paid her. The suggestion that this person has become uncontactable is incredible. We do not accept that we have been told the truth about the respondent’s knowledge of Ms Sheikh.”
Ms Kauser had worked at Isaac Abraham Solicitors and transferred across to Inaaya in 2016 under TUPE. Her disability since 2019 was chronic pain and she was the firm’s only part-time employee.
Inaaya’s evidence was that, in November 2022, it decided to pivot from road traffic accident (RTA) work, which was in significant decline, to housing disrepair (HDR) and that staff had to be full-time.
“The respondent’s redundancy business plan states that experience and ability with HDR work was effectively the only criteria,” Judge Ficklin noted.
“The claimant was an experienced paralegal with litigation experience. She had worked on RTA and debt matters for several years. There is no evidence that suggests that she was not able to learn HDR law with an appropriate opportunity.”
Soon after she was made redundant, Inaaya put out job adverts, including for RTA and debt litigators, one of which said it would accept a part-time worker.
The tribunal did not accept Mr Shad and Mr Shafiq’s evidence that they knew nothing about the adverts.
It found that the requirement to become full-time to avoid redundancy “was not a genuine criterion”, because the potential for a job-share had been discussed during the redundancy process, and because, soon after Ms Kauser left the firm, it advertised for a part-time position “well within” her competence.
The scoring matrices created for the redundancy exercise “were not credible” either, with the scoring “arbitrary”, while the firm did not take reasonable steps to find Ms Kauser suitable alternative employment.
The process, Judge Ficklin said, “was intended to reach the outcome of dismissing the claimant”.
But dismissal was not “a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim to maintain service levels and run a profitable firm”.
A less discriminatory practice could have been instituted through a job-share or asking Ms Kauser to accept the part-time role that was advertised.
The tribunal also found a requirement for Ms Krauser to clock in and out during medically prescribed breaks every hour to be unfavourable treatment as there was “no legitimate aim to this practice”.
It explained: “We make this finding in the context that the claimant was a longstanding employee, in an open-plan office in front of her colleagues, and the respondent accepted that it had no timekeeping purpose.”
The tribunal found she had been unfairly dismissed, subject to detriment as a part-time worker, and discriminated against for having a disability, while the firm failed to make reasonable adjustments as well.
Her claim of sex discrimination failed – “Whatever the problems of this practice… there is no evidence that the claimant’s sex had anything to do with it” – while her claim of pregnancy discrimination was out of time.
The damages after interest and grossing up totalled £41,412, including uplifts for the firm not complying with the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.
Leave a Comment