In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, Mrs Andrea Last, brought a direct race discrimination claim against Doctor Nittin Kumar and Dr Meenu Kumar t/a Hounslow Medical Centre. The tribunal held that the primary limitation period had expired by 10 days, but applied the just and equitable extension under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and allowed the claim to proceed. It relied on the principles in Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link and British Coal Corporation v Keeble when assessing delay, prejudice, and the reasons for the late presentation.

On the facts, the tribunal found that the claimant was not invited to the September 2019 Prague trip, but accepted the respondent's evidence that it was a social outing funded by Dr Ishaque rather than a team-building event, so that allegation was not proved. It also found that the claimant had raised a complaint about Alka Thaker on 4 September 2019 and that Mr Thaha ignored it. The tribunal held that those two matters were standalone events and not part of a continuing act, although time was extended for the claim overall.

The tribunal then considered the allegation that the claimant was accused of gross misconduct on 2 October 2019 and dismissed on 29 November 2019. It found that the main misconduct allegation concerned the handling of a hepatitis B vaccination request for Ms Thaker, but accepted the claimant's evidence that she had asked Ms Thaker to wait because vaccines were limited. It rejected the respondent's explanation for the delay in starting disciplinary action, found the allegations to be general and poorly investigated, and concluded that the disciplinary process was a pretext.

In its conclusions, the tribunal found that Dr Kumar had decided to dismiss the claimant and gathered allegations in order to support that decision. It held that the claimant was treated less favourably than comparators Fahmeeda Kazi and Nabeela Baig, who were non-white practice managers and were not disciplined, and that the less favourable treatment was because of race. The tribunal therefore found the race discrimination claim well founded and noted that remedy issues, including Polkey, contribution and ACAS Code questions, would be dealt with at a later hearing.