Case 4104091/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Tribunal Member: Ms G Eckersley Tribunal Member: S Singh Ms Aishah Zaman v Represented by: Ms C Greig -15 Solicitor Knightsbridge Furnishing Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104091/2020
- Decision date
- 4 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Bradley
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Ms G Eckersley, S Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tribunal Member: Ms G Eckersley Tribunal Member: S Singh Ms Aishah Zaman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAishah Zaman worked for Knightsbridge Furnishing Ltd from 1 July 2018 and later became office manager. The tribunal found a course of conduct by Shahzad Younas from about August 2018 to April 2020, including WhatsApp messages and in-person exchanges that it held were related to sex or of a sexual nature. Those incidents included comments about cleaning and cooking for him, remarks about her appearance and gym use, messages referring to her as a prostitute or doing "prostitutes' work", sexual messages and images, and the events of 16 April 2020 when Younas shouted at her, grabbed her arm, and told her to leave.
The tribunal held that this conduct amounted to harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 and created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It rejected the direct sex discrimination claim based on dismissal, finding that the dismissal was not because of sex; on the claimant's case, the issue was that she had stood up to Younas and challenged him, which was not enough to establish sex as the reason. It also held that by 7 May 2020 the claimant had done a protected act by intimating allegations of sexual harassment and victimisation.
The tribunal further held that later allegations made against the claimant, including an allegation of fraudulent theft of £17,718.29, were false and were made because of that protected act, so victimisation succeeded. It held that the harassment conduct extended over a period from about August 2018 until sometime in April 2020, so the claim was in time under section 123. On remedy, it rejected the illegality defence, held there was no inextricable link between the non-payment of tax and national insurance and the discrimination claims, awarded £16,000 for injury to feelings plus £2,984 interest, and held the respondents jointly and severally liable; no ACAS uplift or grossing up was applied.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Succeeded against both respondents under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal did not split the award between this claim and victimisation; compensation was awarded globally for Parts 1 and 2. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Succeeded against both respondents under section 27 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the post-complaint allegations against the claimant were made because she had made protected acts. The award was not split between this claim and harassment. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed. The tribunal found the dismissal on 16 April 2020 was not an act of direct discrimination because it was not because of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,984
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- conduct extending over a period
- inextricable link
- joint and several basis under section 109(2) Equality Act 2010
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.