Case 3205000/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Kaiser v Khans Solicitors and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205000/2021
- Decision date
- 15 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms F Kaiser
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge W A Allen QC on 15 March 2022. The claimant appeared in person and the respondents were represented by Mr Sutton of Peninsula. The hearing was held in private by video at the East London Hearing Centre.
The tribunal struck out the part of the claimant's harassment claim that alleged harassment related to disability, sex and/or nationality by her manager or colleagues shouting at her and by making unspecified derogatory and insulting comments, on the basis that that part had no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment did not strike out the whole harassment claim.
For the avoidance of doubt, the tribunal recorded that the harassment allegation concerning the response on 3 December 2020, 'you are not going to die doing it', remained part of the claim, as did two specific comments said to have been made in August/September 2019. The tribunal made no deposit orders and said that no other part of the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | At the preliminary hearing, the tribunal struck out the part of the harassment claim alleging harassment related to disability, sex and/or nationality by the claimant being shouted at and by unspecified derogatory or insulting comments, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal stated that the allegation based on the 3 December 2020 response ('you are not going to die doing it') remained part of the claim, as did two specific comments said to have been made in August/September 2019. | Other | Disability | — |
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.
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.