Miss A Dadd Respondent 1: S N Marketing Services Ltd Respondent 2: Mohammed Ayub Respondent 3: Nasser Mughal v Respondent — 2022

Between 15 January and 7 June 2021 the claimant worked for the first respondent as a customer service/administrator and later under a statutory apprenticeship agreement. The tribunal found there was no effective apprenticeship agreement before 4 May 2021, no signed contract was given to her, and no meaningful training record was produced. It therefore held that she was an employee, not a statutory apprentice, until 3 May 2021, which led to an unlawful deduction from wages of £1,146.33. The later wage claim for 4 May to 7 June 2021 failed because the statutory apprenticeship agreement had then come into force.

Most of the Equality Act claims failed. The tribunal rejected the alleged direct discrimination complaints on race, religion or belief and sex, and it rejected the harassment complaints except for one race harassment complaint. It found that several of the remarks were inappropriate, brusque or unhelpful, but that did not make them unlawful unless they were shown to be because of a protected characteristic. It also rejected the pension complaint, the grievance and appeal complaints, and the victimisation claim, finding that the shortcomings identified were not because the claimant had done protected acts.

On the factual findings, the tribunal accepted that Mr Ayub called the claimant 'dumbo', but it held that the text exchange was not sex-, race- or religion-related harassment and that the claimant had not shown less favourable treatment. It rejected as unproved the allegation that Mr Ayub had told her 'you owe me, I gave you the job', and it found that Mr Mughal's private remark that she 'spoke properly' was a compliment about her telephone skills, albeit one that was linked in part to the way she differed from other Asian and Muslim employees.

The only substantive Equality Act finding in the claimant's favour was the May 2021 remark that she looked like a black girl and talked like a white girl. The tribunal held that this was unwanted conduct related to race which could reasonably be experienced as violating dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. It rejected the separate 'too westernised' allegation on the facts, and it held that the same remark did not amount to harassment related to religion or belief. It also held that the May 2021 complaint was in time, or alternatively that time should be extended on just and equitable grounds.

On remedy, the tribunal found no financial loss flowing from the successful harassment because it was satisfied that the claimant would have raised her unhappiness with the respondent on 7 June 2021 in any event. It awarded £1,500 for injury to feelings, placing the case in the lower Vento band, plus £140 interest calculated to 20 July 2022. The first respondent was liable for the wage award, and the first and third respondents were jointly and severally liable for the harassment compensation and interest, producing a total award of £2,786.33.