Case 2402071/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Tehmina Akhtar v Calrom Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402071/2023
- Decision date
- 20 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Panel members
- Ms Crane, Ms Doyle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Tehmina Akhtar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent as a .Net Developer from July 2007 until 31 August 2022. The respondent accepted that it dismissed her, and by the hearing relied on some other substantial reason connected with her failure to return to work in the UK after an extended career break. The tribunal found the respondent had not acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient because it had not followed a fair process before dismissal.
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded. It said remedy for unfair dismissal was not considered at the liability hearing and would be addressed later, including any Polkey reduction or other compensation adjustments.
The disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The respondent had conceded disability by reason of anxiety disorder from July 2022, and the tribunal found the respondent knew or ought to have known of disability from January 2022, but it did not find the pleaded direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, or reasonable adjustments complaints well founded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal well founded. Remedy was not considered at this liability hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaints concerning dismissal, refusal to consider working from home in Pakistan, and refusal to retain the claimant on furlough in 2020 were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, concerning failure to investigate under the career break policy and failure to conduct a capability review, were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Kent County Council v Gilham
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- Smith v Churchills Stairlifts Plc
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.