Mr S H K Batcha (in person) Tamil Interpreter: Mr M Amutharasan (26 to 28 August 2025) For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant worked as a health care assistant at Lilleybrook and was found to be a Muslim Indian national. The tribunal accepted that there were repeated concerns during probation about his attitude, his approach to instructions, and his interactions with staff, but also found that he passed probation in May 2023. It found that some conversations, particularly on 18 May 2023, included direct references to his culture, India, and being Muslim, so those matters required explanation under the Equality Act 2010.

Applying the direct discrimination burden of proof under s.13 and s.136 EqA 2010, and the authorities it cited including Igen v Wong, Madarassy, Efobi, Nagarajan and Shamoon, the tribunal concluded that the prayer discussions were not discriminatory. It found the respondent was concerned about staffing levels and resident safety, not about preventing prayer, and accepted that breaks for prayer were treated in the same way as other additional breaks requiring permission. On the 18 May 2023 conversation, the tribunal accepted the manager was responding to earlier comments by the claimant about women giving him instructions and was trying to encourage him to treat female colleagues equally. It therefore dismissed the direct race/nationality and religion claims.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's case that the suspension, investigation, and dismissal were fabricated or predetermined. It found that the resident complaints made in late October 2023 were independent of Mrs Chance-Dundas, that both residents had capacity, and that the investigatory and appeal process confirmed the allegations. The tribunal found that the claimant had committed the gross misconduct alleged, including in relation to personal care and failure to follow instructions while suspended, and that the respondent genuinely believed this to be gross misconduct. Applying the contractual notice terms and the gross misconduct authorities it cited, including Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospital NHS Trust v Westwood, it held that the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice and dismissed the breach of contract notice pay claim. No monetary award was made.