Case 2501027/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Sarmadi v Hala Limited Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501027/2020
- Decision date
- 8 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore NLM
- Panel members
- Mrs C Hunter NLM, Mr S Moules NLM
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Sarmadi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an Area Manager, brought constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation claims arising from events in December 2019 and the later disciplinary process. The tribunal accepted that he said on 17 December 2019 that what had happened to him could amount to racism, which was a protected act, and it found some serious failings in the respondent's grievance handling and that the disciplinary investigation fell below the standard it would expect. Even so, it held that the claimant was not constructively dismissed because he said he had lost trust on 18 December 2019 but remained employed until 31 May 2020 and then gave notice, which the tribunal treated as affirmation of any breach.
All direct race discrimination claims failed. The tribunal found that the claimant had performance issues which had concerned the respondent before 17 December 2019, that the demotion to Store Manager was a genuine attempt to address those issues, and that the alleged remark on 18 December 2019 was not said. The harassment claims also failed: the holiday evidence requests and the photograph of the claimant's house were found to arise from the respondent's suspicion about the holiday request, not from race, and the alleged threatening manner on 17 and 18 December was found to relate to the claimant's allegations about Ms Mieloch rather than race.
The victimisation claim succeeded only in two respects. The tribunal found that suspending the claimant on 18 December 2019 with no explanation of the gross misconduct allegation, and acting in a threatening manner towards him on 17 and 18 December 2019, were unfavourable treatment because of the protected act on 17 December. It rejected the other victimisation allegations, including lack of warning, the fraud allegation, delay in the disciplinary process, demotion, and the alleged 18 December remark. Liability was decided only; compensation was left to a later remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
14 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim based on alleged breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal held that the claimant delayed until 31 May 2020 to resign after saying he had lost trust on 18 December 2019, so any breach was affirmed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegation that the claimant was forced out of the organisation because of race. The tribunal found he was not constructively dismissed and that the respondent had performance concerns and appeared to be trying to keep him in employment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegation that demotion to Store Manager after the disciplinary process was race discrimination. The tribunal found the demotion was a genuine attempt to address performance issues and that demotion had been used before as an alternative to dismissal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Alleged discriminatory remark by Saif Alani on 18 December 2019. The tribunal found the words were not said. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Alleged harassment by requests for holiday evidence in November and December 2019. The tribunal found the respondent's concerns were legitimate and not related to race. |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95(1) ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA implied term of trust and confidence
- Leeds Dental Team Ltd v Rose
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.39(4)(c) and (d) Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.