UK law firm faces claims of disability discrimination and unfavourable treatment
The Employment Tribunal in Manchester, U.K. recently ruled in favour of a paralegal who made claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and unfavourable treatment as a part-time worker against her former employer.
The paralegal began working for Inaaya Solicitors Limited in September 2016 after a transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations from her previous employer, Isaac Abraham Solicitors. Inaaya Solicitors is a law firm based in Oldham, Greater Manchester, England.
The paralegal could not work on a full-time basis since she had been disabled since December 2019. Chronic pain limited her ability to work full-time.
In November 2022, Inaaya Solicitors faced a decline in road traffic accident work, which led to a redundancy consultation that included the paralegal. Although a job-share option was initially discussed, she was dismissed late that November when no other staff members agreed to the arrangement.
Unfair dismissal claim granted
In a judgment by the Manchester Employment Tribunal, the presiding employment judge found the dismissal part of a "sham" redundancy process designed to target her part-time status rather than based on any genuine business need.
The tribunal saw no genuine redundancy situation at Inaaya Solicitors. The tribunal pointed out inconsistencies in the law firm's handling of the redundancy process. The tribunal rejected the firm’s claims that redundancy was necessary due to reduced work and that the pivot to housing disrepair work necessitated full-time positions.
The tribunal noted that the paralegal could have continued in her role part-time, given that the firm posted job advertisements shortly after the paralegal's dismissal, including for part-time positions within her area of experience.
The tribunal upheld the paralegal's claim of disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that the firm failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate her condition, such as offering a job share option or one of the advertised part-time roles.
Additionally, the tribunal determined that the firm's requirement for the paralegal to clock in and out during medically prescribed breaks was demeaning and served no legitimate purpose.
The paralegal also succeeded in her claim under the Part-Time Workers (Protection from Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The tribunal found her dismissal directly linked to her part-time status and saw no objective justification for this treatment.
The decision highlighted that the firm’s inconsistent approach to part-time work, including allowing other employees to work part-time, showed unfairness in how the paralegal was treated.
The tribunal dismissed the paralegal's claims of pregnancy discrimination, maternity discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination as being outside the period of protection or as not well-founded.
