Miss Z Yassin v Human Appeal and 1 other — 2018

The tribunal refused the claimant's late applications to add disability, religion, and whistleblowing claims. Applying the Selkent balance of hardship and injustice, it held the proposed amendments would have prejudiced the respondents, required an adjournment, and were not properly formulated; it also considered the disability application weak on the information then available.

On the sex discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that Mr Kamel used sex-specific examples when discussing the fundraising role and that those remarks could be open to misinterpretation, but it found he would have used similar examples to a male candidate and that he did not treat the claimant less favourably because she was a woman. It rejected the pleaded allegations about a "man's job", the interview questions as pleaded, the threatened lower salary, delay in paperwork, desk allocation, bank-account request, performance criticism, event allocation, and hotel booking as treatment motivated by sex.

The dismissal complaint failed because the tribunal found the claimant had been repeatedly late very early in her employment, including on her first day, the induction day, and the away day, and that she had not given an adequate explanation or timely notification. It held the dismissal was based on reliability and performance concerns, not sex, although it accepted that dismissing her late at night at an away venue was an ill-judged way to deal with the situation.

The harassment claim also failed. The tribunal found the late-night dismissal meeting was unwanted and could reasonably have had the proscribed effect in the circumstances, but it held there was no relationship with sex and no prohibited purpose. It also rejected the allegation that the pre-interview and interview comments amounted to harassment because, although the claimant disliked them, they were not found to have the necessary effect when viewed in context.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant's complaints to Mr Khan and others were about management and performance, not allegations of sex discrimination or any other Equality Act breach. It therefore found no protected act or anticipated protected act. The claimant's holiday pay, unlawful deductions from wages, and breach of contract claims were withdrawn and dismissed, and no monetary award was made.