A tribunal has awarded £41,000 to a disabled paralegal dismissed unfairly.
- The firm was criticised for its handling of redundancy and discrimination claims.
- Serious doubts were raised about the credibility of the firm’s management.
- Evidence suggested the redundancy process targeted the paralegal specifically.
- The firm failed to make reasonable adjustments for the employee’s disability.
In a significant ruling, a tribunal awarded £41,000 to a paralegal who faced unfair dismissal and discrimination from an Oldham-based law firm. The tribunal, overseen by Employment Judge Ficklin in Manchester, concluded that the firm unjustly dismissed Saima Kauser due to her inability to work full-time as a result of her disability. The sum included £22,500 for the emotional impact endured by Ms Kauser.
The tribunal found multiple issues with the evidence presented by the firm’s management team, particularly that of managing director Taher Shad, business development manager Mohammad Shafiq, and HR manager Fareena Naz Siddiqi. It noted that these witnesses were not credible on numerous points, such as their lack of knowledge regarding the deletion of Ms Kauser’s HR records. There was further criticism over the indifference shown towards the data breach concerning Ms Kauser’s records, which was unexplained and uninvestigated.
A central contention involved the supposed inability to contact the external solicitor who dealt with Ms Kauser’s grievance appeal. Mr. Shad’s testimony regarding the solicitor lacked credibility given their past professional relationship with the firm. The tribunal did not accept the assertion of unreachability, pointing out that the lack of truthfulness around Ms Sheikh’s contact information was questionable.
The case detailed that Ms Kauser joined the firm in 2016 through TUPE following her tenure at Isaac Abraham Solicitors and had suffered from chronic pain since 2019. As the firm’s only part-time employee, Ms Kauser was affected when the firm shifted focus from road traffic accident (RTA) claims to housing disrepair (HDR) work, requiring full-time positions. Despite her legal experience, the firm claimed she did not meet the new requirements, although this was not supported by evidence.
It emerged that after her redundancy, the firm advertised job openings for roles that Ms Kauser could potentially fill, including positions mentioning the possibility of part-time work. This prompted the tribunal to dismiss the firm’s claims regarding their ignorance of such adverts as unreliable. The redundancy criteria requiring full-time work were not genuine, highlighting the potential for a job share arrangement discussed during the process.
The tribunal criticised the firm’s redundancy process, describing the criteria used for scoring as arbitrary. It stated the intended outcome was Ms Kauser’s dismissal rather than a legitimate effort to maintain service levels or profitability. Furthermore, the firm’s requirement for Ms Kauser to log her breaks was deemed unjustified and discriminatory, causing unnecessary embarrassment in an open-plan office environment. The tribunal acknowledged that Ms Kauser was treated unfavourably and discriminated against due to her disability, with the firm failing to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal ruled the dismissal process unjust, awarding damages for discrimination and failure to accommodate the employee’s disability.
