Farooq was employed as a Systems Analyst for an engineering company. He was based in London and was the only British-Pakistani employee. He suffered with various health issues, including angina.
Approximately 3 months after starting work for the company, a new scheme was introduced offering promotional opportunities to staff who were under 45 years of age. Farooq objected to this as he would have been unfairly excluded from this scheme. He complained and on review, a panel of assessors agreed that he should have been paid at a higher rate. This would have been in keeping with his job grade and he was offered a staggered increase in his salary. This should have taken place over a period of 18 months. He was still, however, denied access to the newly introduced scheme.
Farooq discovered that his colleagues were being paid in accordance with a different job evaluation scheme, meaning that he was receiving a substantially lower salary than his colleagues in similar roles.
He was also subjected to bullying treatment by his manager, who regularly humiliated him by shouting at him in front of his colleagues. Further, she denied him training opportunities which were offered to other staff. He believed that she disliked him because of his nationality and his religion.
Farooq complained about the way he was being treated and submitted a grievance because he was being treated less favourably, when compared with his colleagues who were younger, and who were not of British Pakistani origin. His grievance was not upheld but it was shared with his manager. She then made a retaliatory complaint against him, accusing him of sexual harassment.
Farooq appealed against the decision. The appeal was not upheld. He then asked to speak privately to a director. In this meeting, he told the director that he believed he was being discriminated against because of his age, race, religion and sex.
The following day, Farooq was told that his role was being made redundant and his employment was terminated, with immediate effect, by paying him in lieu of notice. Farooq did not believe that his redundancy was genuine. He believed that he was being dismissed because he had complained about the discrimination he suffered, which included harassment and victimisation.
Initially, Farooq represented himself and submitted a claim to the Employment Tribunal. He was directed by the Tribunal to submit Further and Better Particulars and it was at that point that he instructed us.
We drafted detailed Further and Better Particulars and arranged for Farooq to be represented by a barrister at a preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing, the parties agreed the issues and a 6 day hearing was listed.
Both parties agreed to a Judicial Mediation in order to save costs and we represented Farooq at this Mediation.
The parties could not reach a mutually agreeable sum so we prepared for a full trial. We tried to agree a trial bundle with the Respondents. However, they refused to disclose a number of pertinent and relevant documents, which included records of notes taken during the grievance appeal meeting, and also in relation to our client’s redundancy.
We made a final offer to settle the claim, before Farooq incurred barrister’s fees for the full trial. Farooq’s former employer agreed to pay £26,000 in full and final settlement, which represented around 10 months’ salary.
Martin Searle Solicitors is the trading name of ms solicitors ltd, which is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and is registered in England under company number 05067303.© 2024