In a significant ruling, a Manchester tribunal has granted £41,000 in damages to a paralegal dismissed unfairly by a law firm due to her disability.
Employment Judge Ficklin found Oldham-based Inaaya Solicitors culpable for discriminating against Saima Kauser. They targeted her through a redundancy process, justified by her inability to work full-time due to chronic pain. This decision highlights a critical stance against discriminatory practices in employment.
The tribunal was sceptical about the credibility of evidence presented by the firm’s management, including Managing Director Taher Shad. They failed to elucidate who deleted Ms Kauser’s HR records, a breach that raised serious concerns about data handling within the firm. The tribunal also doubted the firm’s claim of being unable to contact the solicitor handling Ms Kauser’s grievance appeal.
Ms Kauser, employed since 2016 after transferring under TUPE from another firm, faced redundancy when Inaaya shifted focus from road traffic accident cases to housing disrepair work. The firm insisted on full-time staff for the transition. Despite mitigating opportunities like job-sharing or a part-time role, these were ignored in favour of redundancy.
Remarkably, after dismissing Ms Kauser, the firm advertised for part-time posts similar to her expertise, undermining their earlier argument for full-time employment necessity. Judge Ficklin noted the firm’s scoring mechanisms during redundancy were neither reasonable nor credible, suggesting a premeditated outcome against the claimant.
The tribunal criticised the firm’s treatment of Ms Kauser, particularly making her clock out during prescribed medical breaks, describing it as unnecessary and unfavourable treatment. They concluded dismissal was an unlikely proportionate measure for maintaining service levels, emphasizing that alternative arrangements were feasible.
While Ms Kauser’s claims of sex and pregnancy discrimination did not succeed, the tribunal acknowledged unfair dismissal, detrimental treatment as a part-time worker, and failure to accommodate her disability. The damages accounted for the firm’s non-compliance with the ACAS code during grievance proceedings.
This case sets a precedent in employment law, underscoring the importance of credible evidence and fair treatment of disabled workers. It highlights the need for employers to establish transparent, non-discriminatory practices, ensuring all employees are treated equitably.
