Case 4104783/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Member: R McPherson Tribunal Member: R Taggart Mr Iftikhar Shami v Represented by: Mr A Elesinnla - Counsel BMI Healthcare Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104783/2020
- Decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman Tribunal
- Panel members
- R McPherson, R Taggart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member: R McPherson Tribunal Member: R Taggart Mr Iftikhar Shami
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Shami, a Scottish Asian Muslim pharmacist, raised a grievance in March 2020 about Ms Wright's treatment of him, including comments about fasting and a Chinese-accent mimicry incident. Ms Hodges investigated, interviewed a number of staff, and on 17 April 2020 partially upheld the first grievance heading in the sense that she accepted some of the incidents had occurred, but she concluded they were not race or religion discrimination and recommended conciliation, mediation, and improved working relations. Ms Smith upheld that outcome on appeal on 11 June 2020.
The tribunal held that the grievance process and appeal formed an act extending over a period, so the Equality Act claims were in time. It accepted that there were some omissions and imperfections in the investigation and appeal, including not interviewing every named witness and not explaining every point as clearly as it might have done, but it found those matters were not because of race or religion. The tribunal's view was that the key context was the breakdown in the working relationship between the claimant and Ms Wright, together with performance concerns and the need to record the Albyn dexamethasone issue as a near miss on Riskman.
The harassment and victimisation claims were also dismissed. The tribunal found some conduct was adverse from the claimant's perspective, but it held that the conduct was not related to race or religion and that the claimant's protected acts were not the reason for the treatment complained of. It held that Ms Shahzad was required to record the Albyn incident and that Ms Dunlop's later correspondence about the grievance process and possible disciplinary action was not a threat in context. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract and no conduct that, viewed as a whole, was calculated or likely to destroy the employment relationship. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Race limb of the direct discrimination complaint. The tribunal held the grievance and appeal were in time but found no less favourable treatment because the relevant decisions were driven by the breakdown in the working relationship, performance concerns, and the way the Albyn incident had to be recorded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Religion/belief limb of the direct discrimination complaint. The tribunal accepted that some of the complained-of conduct occurred, but it found the explanation was not discriminatory and was instead linked to the workplace relationship breakdown and the context of the fasting discussions. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaint so far as based on race. The tribunal found some unwanted conduct, but it was not related to race and did not have the required effect in law. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaint so far as based on religion or belief. The tribunal accepted the claimant perceived the conduct as adverse, but held it was not related to religion and did not satisfy section 26. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | The claimant relied on his grievances, appeal documents, later complaints and resignation as protected acts. The tribunal found some detriments, but not because of those protected acts. | Dismissed | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks continuing act test
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Hale v BSUH
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Courtaulds Northern Textiles Ltd v Andrew
- Woods v WM Car Services
- Malik v BCCI
- Timothy James Consulting Ltd v Wilton
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.