EAT rejects paralegal’s appeal over discrimination claim despite tribunal error


Employment dispute: Claim did not encompass grievance process

An employment tribunal made a legal error when rejecting a paralegal’s disability discrimination claim but it was not enough to overturn the decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled.

His Honour Judge Auerbach upheld the decision that Ralli was justified in deciding to terminate the employment of Celina Stott before the end of her three-month probation period.

The claim was against Ralli Ltd, the personal injury firm based in Sale, Cheshire, as opposed to the Manchester-based commercial firm Ralli Solicitors. The two firms were once one, and still have two partners in common.

Ms Stott was recruited at the end of September 2017. Following her departure, she made multiple discrimination claims against the law firm, along with harassment and a personal injury claim for stress and injury, although they were narrowed down before trial to six complaints linked to her mental health.

The tribunal found as a fact that “at no time prior to her dismissal” did the paralegal disclose her impairment to the law firm, nor was there anything within her CV to suggest that periods of unemployment were the result of ill-health, mental impairment or disability.

Rather, she was “simply not performing at the standard expected of her”. The tribunal found that anyone in Ms Stott’s position who had made the number of errors she had would probably have had their probationary period terminated.

The decision was upheld on reconsideration.

HHJ Auerbach found that the tribunal erred by failing to make a specific finding about whether the “something” for which the claimant was dismissed – her poor performance – arose in consequence of her disability of anxiety and depression.

Ms Stott triggered the firm’s grievance procedure over her dismissal and she argued that it became aware of her disability before her grievance appeal was rejected.

The question then was whether the tribunal should have regarded the grievance process as an integral part of the dismissal process.

Had it, HHJ Auerbach said, the evidence was such that the tribunal “would have been bound to conclude” that information disclosed in that period put Ralli at least on notice that she might be a disabled person.

However, the claim was brought on the basis of the original decision to dismiss, and did not encompass the later dismissal of the grievance appeal.

“It seems to me clear that there was full and careful consideration by the tribunal, at a number of stages, of the scope of her claims… I do not think this is a case where the trial tribunal ought to have considered that there was, or might be, a [disability discrimination] complaint about the decision on the grievance appeal.

“Accordingly, it was not an error to fail to consider such a complaint.”

HHJ Auerbach also held that the tribunal did not err in concluding that the justification defence was made out.

All three elements would have needed to succeed for the appeal to be upheld and, as they were not, the judge held that the tribunal did not ultimately err in dismissing the claim.

The original tribunal criticised the law firm’s failure to check qualifications and references before the paralegal started work in the personal injury department, a failure it acknowledged, saying it had since tightened up checks on job applicants.




    Readers Comments

  • Celina Stott says:

    This article is not worth anyone’s time . A mere article to poke fun at those with disabilities in legal sector. Mr Rose ought to get a life and stop reporting on mindless events.


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


A new route to practice rights for chartered legal executives

Following approval from the Legal Services Board in May 2022, CILEx Regulation has launched an alternative route for chartered legal executives to obtain independent practice rights.


NFTs, the courts and the role of injunctions

In May, news broke that a non-fungible token was the subject of a successful injunction made by the Singapore High Court. The NFT in question is part of the very valuable Bored Ape Yacht Club series.


Matthew Pascall

Low-value commercial cases – an achievable challenge for ATE insurers

There are many good claims brought for damages that are likely to be significantly less than twice the cost of bringing the claim. These cases present a real challenge for insurers.


Loading animation