Case 3307323/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Kainth v Dr S Babu and 3 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 3307323/2020
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr Kapur, Mr Murphy
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Ms H Kainth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that, at all relevant times from 17 April 2020 onwards, the claimant met the definition of a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. It rejected the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments and also rejected the section 15 disability discrimination complaint.
The only complaint to succeed was victimisation arising from Mr Kalra alleging that the claimant was racist or islamophobic. The tribunal held that this amounted to victimisation by "any other detriment" under section 39(4)(c) EQA. It also found that there was no contravention of section 39(4)(d) EQA, even taking account of section 39(7)(b).
All other complaints were dismissed. The tribunal dismissed the remaining victimisation complaints, both harassment complaints under sections 26(3) and 26(2), and the direct discrimination complaints because of race, age, religion and sex.
For the successful victimisation complaint, the respondents were ordered to pay £1,720.60, made up of £1,500 for injury to feelings and £220.60 interest on that sum for the period 10 July 2020 to 11 May 2022 at 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
10 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Complaint that Mr Kalra alleged the claimant was racist or islamophobic succeeded; the tribunal found a contravention of section 39(4)(c) EQA (victimisation by any other detriment). | Upheld | — | £1,721 |
| Victimisation | Other victimisation complaints were dismissed; the tribunal found no contravention of section 39(4)(d) EQA (victimisation by dismissal), even taking account of section 39(7)(b) EQA. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaint within section 26(3) EQA dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaint within section 26(2) EQA dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claimant met the section 6 EQA definition of disability from 17 April 2020 onwards, but the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EQA complaint dismissed. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,721
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 6 EQA
- section 15 EQA
- section 26(2) EQA
- section 26(3) EQA
- section 39(4)(c) EQA
- section 39(4)(d) EQA
- section 39(7)(b) EQA
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.