Case 1307553/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1307553/2019
- Decision date
- 14 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow
- Panel members
- Mr E Stanley, Mr MZ Khan
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Kanta Mistry worked for Coventry University as a Management Support Administrator from 15 October 2001 until her dismissal on 1 August 2019. The tribunal found that difficulties at work pre-dated the claimant's April 2014 email about duties and allocation of work, and that concerns continued through later meetings, a final written warning in July 2016, and a performance improvement plan in September 2018. It preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses and rejected a number of the claimant's factual assertions.
On discrimination, the tribunal found no facts from which it could infer direct discrimination on grounds of race or age, and no basis to link the complained-of management action to either protected characteristic. It rejected the race-harassment allegations, including the allegation that Ms Moten called the claimant a 'chaiwallah' and made comments about 'temples' and 'wailing prayers', finding those matters were not in the pleaded case or contemporaneous documents and were recent concoctions. The tribunal also found no protected act for victimisation, noting that the drafted GR1 grievance was never submitted and did not identify any protected characteristic or protected act. It held that any continuing act of discrimination ended by March 2019 and that the discrimination claims were out of time under section 123 EqA 2010.
On dismissal, the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the reason was capability: prolonged and repeated sickness absence, no formal diagnosis preventing work, occupational health reports saying there was no medical reason she could not perform her duties, no realistic redeployment, and no reasonable prospect of a sustained return to work. It held that the respondent followed a fair process, including a Stage II absence review, a recommendation to dismiss with contractual notice, and an appeal that upheld the dismissal. The claims for unpaid notice pay and unpaid holiday pay were treated as abandoned and were dismissed as not well-founded in any event. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal rejected the direct race discrimination complaint, finding no less favourable treatment and no basis to link the management action to race. It also held that any continuing act ended by March 2019 and that the discrimination claims were out of time under section 123 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal rejected the direct age discrimination complaint, finding no less favourable treatment and no basis to link the management action to age. It also held that any continuing act ended by March 2019 and that the discrimination claims were out of time under section 123 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim, pleaded on race and/or age, was dismissed. The tribunal rejected the late race-based allegations in the claimant's witness statement, including the alleged 'chaiwallah' and 'temples' remarks, and found those allegations were not in the pleaded case or contemporaneous documents. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found no protected act and no detriment attributable to any protected act. It noted that the drafted GR1 grievance was never submitted and did not identify any protected characteristic or protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The dismissal was found to be fair and for capability. The tribunal relied on prolonged and repeated absence, the occupational health evidence, the absence of a medical reason preventing work, no realistic redeployment, and a fair procedure including appeal. |
Legal tests applied
20 references- Equality Act 2010 ss.13, 26, 27, 39, 40, 123, 136
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- R v Governing Body of JFS
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
- Grant v HM Land Registry
- ERA 1996 s.94
- ERA 1996 s.98(1)-(4)
- Wilson v Post Office
- Taylor v Alidair Ltd
- Lynock v Cereal Packaging Ltd
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- Post Office v Foley / HSBC Bank plc v Madden
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- ACAS Code of Practice 2015
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.