Case 2203468/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. Samia Abed v Capital City College Group Hearing: Final Merits Hearing — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203468/2021
- Decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion
- Panel members
- Ms. Carpenter, Ms. Keating
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. Samia Abed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Samia Abed was dismissed by Capital City College Group for conduct arising from the handling of HNC/HCP Units 2 and 3. The tribunal found that, as Curriculum Leader and Lead Internal Verifier, she failed to ensure Unit 2 and 3 grades were final grades based on completed work and had been internally verified before they were presented to the Academic Board on 3 July 2020. It found she forwarded predicted grades as final, allowed the Board to finalise the grades, and did not properly respond when E1 later sought payment for assessment work done after that Board meeting.
The tribunal held the dismissal was for conduct and that the employer genuinely and reasonably believed the claimant had committed misconduct. It found the investigation was reasonable in part, but criticised it for not making findings on why the events happened, and held the disciplinary process was unfair because the claimant had not been given reasonable advance notice of the factual matters said to amount to malpractice/maladministration and disrepute. Even so, the tribunal found there was a 100% chance she would have been fairly dismissed in any event, and that she was 100% culpable for the sequence of events leading to her dismissal, so any compensatory award was reduced to nil.
The race discrimination and race harassment claims were dismissed. The tribunal held the December 2019/January 2020 sickness-absence complaint was out of time and not part of a continuing act. It rejected the remaining allegations that the respondent failed properly to investigate E1, blamed the claimant for his actions, failed to take her record into account, or chose summary dismissal because of race or ethnic/national origin. The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the tribunal found the claimant had committed gross misconduct and was not entitled to notice pay. The judgment says she succeeded only on unfair dismissal and would be entitled to a basic award, but the amount was not quantified in the reasons.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal was for conduct, but the tribunal held the procedure was unfair because the claimant had not been given reasonable advance notice of the factual allegations and the investigation did not make findings on why the events occurred. The tribunal also found a 100% Polkey reduction and 100% contributory fault, so any compensatory award was nil; the judgment said she would be entitled only to a basic award, which was not quantified in the reasons. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The wrongful dismissal/notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant had committed gross misconduct and was therefore entitled to be summarily dismissed without notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant relied on Israeli nationality and Palestinian/Middle Eastern ethnic origin. The tribunal held the December 2019/January 2020 sickness-absence complaint was out of time and not part of a continuing act, and that the remaining allegations about the investigation, attribution of blame, consideration of her record, and summary dismissal were not proved and were not because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal rejected the race harassment allegations for the same complained-of treatment, holding that the conduct alleged was either not made out or was not related to race and did not have the purpose or effect required by s.26 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Igen v Wong
- band of reasonable responses
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
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.