Case 3320627/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ali, claimant’s colleague For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3320627/2019
- Decision date
- 29 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs C Grant, Ms L Jaffe
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A Ali, claimant’s colleague For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's probationary period had not ended simply because six months had passed. The employment contract said the first six months were probationary and could be extended at the company's sole discretion, and the tribunal found there was no contractual obligation to follow a disciplinary procedure before deciding whether to dismiss her. On that basis, the wrongful dismissal claim failed.
The combined section 13 direct discrimination claim, pleaded as discrimination because of race, sex and disability, also failed. The claimant did not press those allegations at the hearing, and the tribunal said there was no evidence from which it could properly infer that the dismissal was because of race, sex, or disability. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had endometriosis and that this amounted to a disability, but it found that the dismissal decision itself was driven overwhelmingly by attendance and lateness concerns.
The section 15 claim succeeded only to a limited extent. The tribunal found that Ms Drinkwater took into account the claimant's sickness absence and the fact that she could have swapped shifts rather than missing work for surgery recovery, and that this criticism was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. The tribunal rejected any justification defence and found no financial loss, because it concluded that the claimant would still have been dismissed even if the section 15 breach had not occurred. The parties agreed a figure of £2,000 for injury to feelings, and the tribunal recorded that no interest was payable.
The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found no evidential basis for the proposed adjustments and no basis for concluding that they would have been reasonable in the circumstances. It also found that the claimant had not told the respondent that she might need to attend late because of her disability. The part-time worker claim failed because Mr Monjal was not a comparable full-time worker for the purpose of the Regulations, particularly because his lateness record was materially different.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim was based on an alleged contractual entitlement to a disciplinary procedure before dismissal after probation. The tribunal held that the probationary period had not ended before 21 February 2019 and that the contract did not oblige the respondent to follow any particular disciplinary procedure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Part of the claimant's combined section 13 direct discrimination claim. The claimant did not press this claim and the tribunal found no evidence from which race discrimination could be inferred. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Part of the claimant's combined section 13 direct discrimination claim. The claimant did not press this claim and the tribunal found no evidence from which sex discrimination could be inferred. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Part of the claimant's combined section 13 direct discrimination claim. The tribunal found no evidential basis for an inference that the dismissal was because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 claim succeeded to the limited extent that Ms Drinkwater's criticism that the claimant should have swapped shifts to cover recovery from planned surgery was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. The parties agreed a compensation figure of £2,000 for injury to feelings and the tribunal found no financial loss because the claimant would have been dismissed in any event. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Charlesworth v Dransfields Engineering Services Ltd
- section 136 EqA 2010
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd
- Smith v Churchills Stairlifts
- section 20(3) EqA 2010
- regulation 5 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
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.