Automated Summary
Key Facts
Miss Z Lu (Claimant) was employed by KPMG UK Ltd (Respondent) from 2015 to 2018. She raised grievances regarding workplace interactions in October 2017 and was later suspended in March 2018. The disciplinary process followed, with the Claimant refusing to cooperate by not providing consent for occupational health reports and obstructing meetings. The Tribunal found her conduct, including refusal to engage and inappropriate behavior, justified dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996. Key facts include her mental health struggles (depression, anxiety), the Respondent's attempts to accommodate her through adjusted workspaces and access to support services, and the Claimant's failure to comply with reasonable management instructions. The dismissal was deemed fair as the Respondent acted within the band of reasonable responses.
Issues
- The Tribunal evaluated the extent of the investigation into the Claimant's conduct and whether it was as thorough as reasonable in all circumstances.
- The Tribunal considered whether the breakdown of trust and confidence between the parties, arising from the Claimant's conduct, constituted a valid 'some other substantial reason' for dismissal.
- The Tribunal had to determine whether the Respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissing the Claimant, specifically related to her conduct, and whether the dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
- The Tribunal had to establish whether the Claimant suffered from a mental impairment (low mood, depression, stress) that substantially affected her daily activities, meeting the legal definition of disability.
- The Tribunal determined whether the Respondent's decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses, considering the Claimant's conduct and the disciplinary process.
- The Tribunal considered whether the Respondant knew or should have known of the Claimant's disability and whether they failed to make reasonable adjustments (e.g., hot desking, equipment, mediation).
- The Tribunal evaluated whether the Respondent's conduct (e.g., following the Claimant, involving police) violated her dignity or created an offensive environment due to her disability.
- The Tribunal assessed whether the Respondent genuinely believed the Claimant was guilty of the alleged misconduct and whether that belief was reasonably held.
- The Tribunal examined whether the Respondent's actions (e.g., not promoting her, restricting access, handling disciplinary processes) constituted unfavourable treatment.
- The Tribunal determined whether the Claimant's complaints were brought out of time under the Equality Act 2010 and whether extending the time would be just and equitable.
- The Tribunal considered the appropriate compensation for any proven claims, including injury to feelings, and whether the Claimant contributed to her dismissal or mitigated losses.
- The Tribunal assessed whether the Claimant's lower pay and treatment compared to a non-Chinese comparator was due to race discrimination or genuine performance reasons.
- The Tribunal assessed whether the Respondent's actions were linked to the Claimant's disability (e.g., her mental health issues) and whether they were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Holdings
- Disability Discrimination claim dismissed
- Direct Race Discrimination claim dismissed
- Reasonable Adjustments claim dismissed
- Direct Discrimination claims withdrawn
- Unfair Dismissal claim dismissed
- Disability Related Harassment claim dismissed
Legal Principles
- The Burchell factors were considered, requiring a genuine belief in misconduct formed through reasonable investigation, as per British Home Stores v Burchell [1980] ICR 303.
- The tribunal applied the band of reasonable responses test to assess whether the employer's decision to dismiss fell within an objectively reasonable range of actions, as established in Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17.
- The proportionality test under s.15 Equality Act 2010 was applied to determine if unfavourable treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
- The tribunal emphasized it must not substitute its own view for the employer's decision on reasonableness, as per London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] IRLR 563.
- The tribunal assessed the disciplinary process holistically, including the appeal, as per Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] ICR 1602.
Precedent Name
- ILEA v Gravett
- Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association Ltd
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz
- Huggins v Micrel Semiconductor [UK] Ltd
- Hardy & Hansons Plc v Lax
- RSPB v Croucher
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Sheikholeslami v Edinburgh University
Cited Statute
- Equality Act 2010
- Employment Rights Act 1996
- Limitation Act 1980
Judge Name
- B K Saund
- C Lewis
- T Burrows
Passage Text
- We are satisfied that the investigation was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The Claimant had not denied a number of the allegations and we find that many of the events giving rise to the disciplinary allegations were recorded in documentary accounts produced at or very close to the time.
- The Tribunal finds that the reason for the Claimant's dismissal was her conduct. We are satisfied that the Respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct relied upon in reaching the decision to dismiss.
- We find that the Respondent made reasonable adjustments as far as it could, including providing safe space for the Claimant to make the phone call. There is no evidence of a phobia of making phone calls affecting her as a disabled person.