Ms Navabaksh v Ben Adams Architects Limited — 2023

The tribunal heard claims of direct disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010, direct race discrimination and race harassment, unlawful deductions, and constructive unfair dismissal. It accepted that the claimant was a disabled person within s.6 EqA 2010 with effect from 26 February 2020, relying on contemporaneous GP and therapy evidence about anxiety and depression, sleep loss, low mood, concentration problems and related symptoms.

On victimisation and disability discrimination, the tribunal held that only three matters were protected acts: the 28 November 2019 email saying she felt treated like a criminal because of a nervous breakdown, the 26 February 2020 email saying the company had given up on her and treated her differently, and the solicitor's request that the grievance be dealt with by correspondence as a reasonable adjustment. It rejected the other alleged protected acts, found no causal link between the protected acts and the alleged detriments, and concluded that matters such as the website rearrangement, the 25 and 26 February 2020 meetings, the occupational health questions, the laptop and furlough issues, and the delay in the grievance process were not proved to be discriminatory or victimising. The direct disability claim also failed because no less favourable treatment because of disability was proved.

The direct race discrimination and race harassment claims also failed. The tribunal found no evidence or insufficient evidence that the challenged treatment was because of race, noted that the allegations about comments on English, accent and skin colour lacked dates and context, and treated Mr Adams' remarks about ARB accreditation as genuine qualification and client-suitability concerns rather than race-related conduct. The unlawful deductions claim failed because furlough from April to August 2020 was agreed and the later payroll figures, including holiday pay of £3,163.46 and a furlough deduction of £666.67, did not establish an underpayment on the evidence. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract or breach of the Malik term, and held that the appeal timetable and redundancy-risk process did not amount to repudiatory conduct. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.