Ms Z Zamanpour v Property Legal (Manchester) Ltd. t/a PLS Solicitors — 2021

The claimant worked for the respondent from 21 March 2016 until she was dismissed for poor performance on 9 September 2016. The tribunal found that, after an initial induction and some training on the case management system, her manager Olivia Littlewood became concerned within weeks about the quality and organisation of her work, including handling of Land Registry requisitions, task management, file handling, and contacting other staff for information already on the file. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant changed the Land Registry reply email from the team inbox to her own email address, which meant requisitions went to her clutter folder and were not actioned, creating a serious problem for the business.

On the direct discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the section 13 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof approach, including the authorities it cited on the two-stage analysis and the need for something more than a difference in treatment and protected characteristic. It considered the claimant's allegations that dismissal, the level of support and training, the probation process, feedback on progress, promotion, and allocation of files were all done because of race. The tribunal found the comparator evidence did not assist her because the individuals relied on were either in different roles, more experienced, or in materially different circumstances.

The tribunal found the dismissal was not because of race. Although it noted that the respondent did not follow a formal disciplinary process and had decided in advance to dismiss, it accepted the respondent's explanation that the reason was poor performance, particularly the failure to manage requisitions and emails properly. It also found that the claimant had in fact been given training and support, that she had not passed probation, that she was regularly told about performance concerns, that she had not applied for the promotion roles she mentioned, and that she was not allocated more complex files than the comparators. All direct discrimination allegations therefore failed.

On the harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal considered the alleged comments by Georgina Booini, including that the claimant was not special or a princess, that educated people are stupid, and that she did not know her alphabet. It found those were general workplace comments or comments about work organisation and not shown to be related to race or religion. The tribunal did find that a conversation about Booini's Iranian ex-husband was related to race and religion, but held that it was a description of her personal situation, was not unwanted in context, and was not reasonably capable of creating the alleged hostile or offensive environment. All harassment allegations failed, and the tribunal did not need to determine the time-limit issues because no claim succeeded.