Case 2207611/2017 · Employment Tribunal

In person on day 1 and by Mr S Khwaja, her partner, thereafter For the v Mr R Aireton, solicitor — 2018

Case reference: 2207611/2017
Decision date: 2 November 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Snelson
Panel members: Ms D Olulode, Ms L Jones

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person on day 1 and by Mr S Khwaja, her partner, thereafter For the

Respondent

Mr R Aireton, solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms Khan, employed from 6 March 2017 to 7 August 2017, alleged race harassment, sex-related harassment, direct discrimination in the alternative, constructive unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay. The tribunal found that the second respondent used 'Paki' and other derogatory references to Pakistanis, relied on the 5 August 2017 transcript and audio, and held that issues 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 were race-related harassment. It rejected the direct discrimination alternative.

It also found issue 4 ('Kamini') and the sexual aspect of issue 10 were harassment related to sex. The tribunal accepted that 'Kamini' was used as a derogatory term meaning 'bitch', and it treated the 5 August call, in which the second respondent called the claimant a 'Paki bitch', as racially and sexually abusive conduct. It noted the second respondent's conviction for malicious communication, racially aggravated, arising from that call.

Issues 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 were dismissed. The hospital appointment letter was grabbed, but the tribunal found that was not race-related; the Bengali discussion about a proposed new role was not humiliating because the claimant did not understand it; the prescription comment and alleged refusal of holiday were not proved as discriminatory; and the errands allegations were not race-related. On issue 14, the tribunal found there was an actual dismissal by email at 15:41 on 7 August 2017 and not a constructive dismissal, because the claimant's resignation email later that day came after the dismissal.

The tribunal held that the successful harassment allegations formed a continuing act under Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, bringing them within time. Remedy on the discrimination claims was deferred to a later hearing. Separately, the respondents agreed to pay one week's notice pay of £374.15 and holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations; the holiday figure is stated as £771.71 in the order, although paragraph 148 of the reasons refers to £771.31. The tribunal found the claimant took no holiday during employment other than bank holidays and that no binding negotiator contract changed her pay from £24,000.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	Issues 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10. The tribunal found the second respondent used 'Paki' and other derogatory references to Pakistanis, relied on the 5 August 2017 transcript and audio, and held the conduct was harassment related to race; the direct discrimination alternative was not made out. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing.	Upheld	Race	—
Harassment	Issues 4 and 10. The tribunal found 'Kamini' was used as a derogatory term meaning 'bitch' and that the conduct was harassment related to sex; the direct discrimination alternative was not made out. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing.	Upheld	Sex	—
Constructive dismissal	Issue 14. The tribunal found the claimant had already been dismissed by email at 15:41 on 7 August 2017 before her resignation email later that day, so there was an actual dismissal and not a constructive dismissal. It also noted she did not have two years' service for ordinary unfair dismissal.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	One week's notice pay was agreed by consent after the 7 August 2017 dismissal.	Settled	—	£374
Holiday pay	The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 because she took no holiday during employment other than bank holidays and no binding negotiator contract changed her pay from £24,000. The order states £771.71, although paragraph 148 of the reasons refers to £771.31.	Upheld

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £1,146; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

14 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 .

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.