Case 2200197/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M J El-Turk v Human Appeal Heard via CVP (London Central) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200197/2020
- Decision date
- 12 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson
- Panel members
- Ms D Keyms, Ms K O’Shaughnessy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M J El-Turk
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M J El-Turk worked for Human Appeal from 2011, initially as Community Fundraising Manager and later as Community Engagement Manager. The tribunal found that four emails or disclosures between January 2017 and May 2019 about missing donations and a pension-provider issue were protected disclosures: each was made in the public interest and the claimant reasonably believed it tended to show a failure to comply with legal obligations or a failure to handle charitable funds properly.
The discrimination complaints were dismissed. The reasons section addressed age and race discrimination together and held that the claimant had shown no facts from which it could conclude that his dismissal was tainted by age or race discrimination. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant said neither Hameed Al Asaly nor Omar Mashjari discriminated against him.
The automatic unfair dismissal and whistleblowing complaint failed because the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was misconduct arising from the claimant's comments at the open meeting on 19 July 2019, not the protected disclosures. It accepted Hameed Al Asaly's evidence that he was unaware of the disclosures and did not take them into account. The tribunal found the claimant's remarks about Muslim scholars and 'Alex or John' were premeditated, discriminatory and offensive, and that he later apologised.
The ordinary unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and acted reasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason to dismiss him. The tribunal held dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and, in any event, that the same outcome would have followed. The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the tribunal found the claimant had committed gross misconduct and was therefore not entitled to notice or pay in lieu. No monetary award was made, and the respondent's costs application was refused.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the claimant said neither Hameed Al Asaly nor Omar Mashjari discriminated against him and held that he had shown no facts from which it could conclude that his dismissal was tainted by age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant had shown no facts from which it could conclude that his dismissal was tainted by race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found four protected disclosures in 2017, 2018 and 2019 under s.43B ERA 1996, but held that the reason for dismissal was misconduct at the 19 July 2019 meeting and that Hameed Al Asaly was unaware of the disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief and a reasonable procedure, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct under the disciplinary procedure, so he was not entitled to notice or pay in lieu. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 Equality Act
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
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.