Case 2602720/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Dr. S Shaikh v DB Engineering & Consulting GMBH — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602720/2020
- Decision date
- 9 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Members
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mrs. F French, Mr. A Wood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr. S Shaikh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant originally advanced race discrimination, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, victimisation and unpaid holiday pay. At the 5 February 2021 preliminary hearing, race discrimination, sex discrimination, victimisation and direct and indirect disability discrimination were withdrawn and later dismissed on withdrawal by judgment sent 9 February 2021; the holiday pay complaint was also withdrawn. The final hearing therefore concerned discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment, all on the basis of disability.
The tribunal accepted that Dr Shaikh had anxiety and depression and was a disabled person, but found that DB Engineering & Consulting GmbH did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of that disability before the post-dismissal grievance. It rejected her evidence that she had told Mr Hunefeld or Ms Attridge earlier, and held that emails about being under pressure, being mentally exhausted, and fit notes citing work-related stress did not amount to notice of depression or require further enquiry.
If knowledge had been established, the tribunal would still have dismissed the s.15 claim because it found the dismissal followed the claimant's conduct and behaviour, including working from home without permission, not meeting the Dublin attendance requirement, and her 21 January 2020 email and minutes, rather than sickness absence or an inability to cope caused by disability. The reasonable adjustments claims failed because the tribunal found the respondent lacked the required knowledge and, in any event, the suggested steps were not reasonable in the circumstances. The harassment claim also failed: the 21 January meeting invitation and the 28 February 2020 email to staff were unwanted, but neither was related to disability, although the latter was found to have the effect of humiliating the claimant. The claim was dismissed in full and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Withdrawn at the 5 February 2021 preliminary hearing and dismissed on withdrawal by judgment sent on 9 February 2021. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Withdrawn at the 5 February 2021 preliminary hearing and dismissed on withdrawal by judgment sent on 9 February 2021. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct and indirect disability discrimination were withdrawn at the 5 February 2021 preliminary hearing and dismissed on withdrawal by judgment sent on 9 February 2021. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Withdrawn at the 5 February 2021 preliminary hearing and dismissed on withdrawal by judgment sent on 9 February 2021. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The unpaid holiday pay complaint was withdrawn after the 5 February 2021 preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 discrimination arising from disability; dismissed because the tribunal found the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the disability before the grievance and, in any event, the dismissal was for conduct and behaviour rather than sickness absence or inability to cope arising from disability. |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Basildon & Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- s.20 and s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Bagley
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Nazir & Anor v Aslam
- Baldeh v Churches Housing Association of Dudley and District Ltd
- Stott v Ralli Ltd
- Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd
- Chapman v Simon
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.