Case 3307319/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms H Dadhania v SAP (UK) Limited and 5 others — 2023

Case reference: 3307319/2020
Decision date: 19 January 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
Venue: Reading
Panel members: Mr C Juden, Ms H T Edwards

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

7 named

Claimant

Ms H Dadhania

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, a 61-year-old woman of Indian origin employed by SAP as a Services Account Manager, complained about the removal of Accounts A and B, her placement on a performance improvement plan, and the later handling of her grievance and appeal. The tribunal found that the respondent had discretion to move accounts, but that in April and May 2020 the claimant's accounts were removed, her pipeline dropped from £27.6 million to £1.1 million, and she was placed on a PIP without prior warning or discussion. The tribunal also found that the grievance investigation and appeal were not adequately carried out.

On liability for dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent's conduct breached the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the claimant resigned because of that breach and that she had been constructively dismissed. The tribunal also held that the dismissal was unfair: capability was a potentially fair reason, but dismissal on that basis would not have been reasonable, particularly because the respondent had not followed its own performance-management policy and had previously accepted that the claimant was capable of good work. The judgment records that the claimant would be entitled to compensation for loss of her notice period, but no monetary award was fixed in this decision because a remedy hearing was listed for 23 and 24 March 2023.

The Equality Act complaints were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that some meetings on 20 and 27 April 2020 were tense or aggressive, and it made findings that the PIP and account reallocation were imposed without warning. However, it was not satisfied that the treatment, the removal of accounts, the PIP, or the grievance and appeal outcomes were because of age, race or sex. It therefore rejected the direct discrimination complaints, as well as the harassment and victimisation claims, despite noting that one member of the tribunal took a different view on whether subconscious considerations could have been in play.

Claims and outcomes

8 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It held capability was a potentially fair reason, but dismissal on that basis would not have been reasonable in the circumstances and the respondent had not followed its own performance-management policy.	Upheld	—	—
Constructive dismissal	The tribunal found that the respondent's conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach and that the claimant resigned because of that breach, so she was constructively dismissed.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The tribunal held that placing the claimant on a PIP without prior warning or discussion, together with the inadequate handling of the grievance and appeal, amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.	Upheld	—	—
Age discrimination	Part of the tribunal's combined direct discrimination complaint. The tribunal was not satisfied that the treatment complained of was because of age.	Dismissed	Age	—
Race discrimination	Part of the tribunal's combined direct discrimination complaint. The tribunal was not satisfied that the treatment complained of was because of race.	Dismissed	Race	—
Sex discrimination	Part of the tribunal's combined direct discrimination complaint. The tribunal was not satisfied that the treatment complained of was because of sex.

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.