R Sandhu v Enterprise Rent-A-Car Ltd

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the Employment Tribunal's findings on unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination and harassment. The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal had applied the correct legal tests (including the statutory harassment test in section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 and the fairness test in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996), had given adequate reasons read as a whole, and had not reached perverse conclusions. The tribunal's central factual finding was that the primary reason for dismissal was the claimant's longstanding refusal to accept the respondent's reporting structure, a matter the tribunal treated as some other substantial reason (SOSR) capable of justifying dismissal. The EAT also concluded that the individual incidents relied on for harassment and direct discrimination (including reports about late delivery of work, a remark on arrival at work, and comments by management) were either not related to the father's disability or, taken alone and in aggregate, did not have the purpose or effect required by section 26 to constitute harassment.

Background and parties: The appellant, Ms Sandhu, brought claims arising from her dismissal by Enterprise Rent-A-Car Ltd for alleged unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination and harassment. The appellant relied on the disability of her father as the protected characteristic. The Employment Tribunal (Employment Judge Quill with lay members) heard the matter and dismissed the claims; this appeal to the EAT challenged the tribunal's reasoning and alleged perversity.

Nature of the claim / relief sought: The appeal challenged the Employment Tribunal's rejection of unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination and harassment claims and contended that the tribunal had failed to consider lesser sanctions and had been perverse in its factual and legal conclusions.

Procedural posture: The original hearing took place before the Employment Tribunal (hearing dates: 27, 28, 30 June and 1 July 2022; judgment sent 4 October 2022). The appellant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which delivered judgment on 19 October 2023.

Issues framed:

• Whether the Employment Tribunal had erred in law or was perverse in finding the dismissal fair (SOSR based on refusal to report to payroll manager) and in concluding the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses under section 98 ERA 1996.
• Whether the tribunal correctly applied the statutory harassment test in section 26 Equality Act 2010 and related burden of proof principles, including whether it should have assessed the incidents cumulatively.
• Whether the Employment Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its findings or fell foul of the standards required by authorities such as Meek and Greenberg.

Court's reasoning: The EAT reviewed established appellate principles about reading tribunal decisions fairly and holistically (citing Brent v Fuller, Meek and DPP Law v Greenberg) and the high threshold for overturning findings as per Yeboah. The EAT found the Employment Tribunal had (i) identified the correct legal tests for unfair dismissal (s98 ERA 1996) and harassment (s26 Equality Act 2010), (ii) made detailed and coherent factual findings that the claimant had repeatedly refused to accept the reporting structure and had expressed dislike and lack of respect for her proposed manager, (iii) properly considered whether lesser sanctions or incremental warnings should have been used and concluded dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, and (iv) considered each alleged act of harassment and the possibility of assessing them in the round but reasonably concluded that the incidents (two colleagues unaware of the father's illness and one report to management) were minor and did not meet the statutory threshold. The EAT therefore rejected arguments of inadequate reasoning and perversity.

Wider context noted: The EAT emphasised the limited scope for appellate intervention where an Employment Tribunal has covered the correct ground and supplied adequate reasons, and reiterated the procedural point about the Burns/Barke practice and the newer EAT Practice Direction 2023 on applications relating to cross notices.

The appeal was dismissed. The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal had applied the correct legal principles (including section 26 Equality Act 2010 and section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996), had given adequate reasons when read as a whole, and had not reached conclusions that were perverse. The tribunal’s primary factual finding — that the dismissal was for some other substantial reason arising from the claimant’s persistent refusal to accept the reporting structure — was within the band of reasonable responses and sufficiently supported by the evidence, and the harassment and discrimination complaints were not made out on the facts.

Employment Tribunal (Employment Judge Quill with lay members) hearing on 27, 28, 30 June and 1 July 2022; Employment Tribunal judgment sent 4 October 2022 dismissing claims of unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination and harassment. Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal resulting in judgment [2023] EAT 169 (19 October 2023) dismissing the appeal.