A digital challenger bank unfairly treated a solicitor because her asthma meant she needed to work from home and have time off during the pandemic, the employment tribunal has ruled.
Gulnaz Raja, a deputy company secretary at Starling who was admitted to the roll in 2010, sued the bank after she was dismissed in March 2020 and told by general counsel Matthew Newman that she was ‘not a Starling person’.
She claimed she was unfairly treated by Starling because of ‘something arising from her disability’ and that she was subjected to a detriment because the bank and Newman did not hold a meeting to discuss her health and safety concerns.
Raja – who represented herself at a hearing in July – also claimed that she was unfairly dismissed, unfairly treated because Starling did not investigate her allegations of discrimination and that she was ‘victimised’ by the bank.
Her claim of unfavourable treatment due to her disability was upheld, with Judge Natasha Joffe finding that Raja’s ‘ill-health absences and need to work from home and her likely requirement for further time off in particular were a material reason for her dismissal’.
In a judgment published this month, the tribunal rejected Starling and Newman’s explanation that Raja’s performance prompted her dismissal, saying that ‘there was good evidence that [Newman] valued employees working long hours in the office’.
‘He was critical of [Raja] for leaving work at the end of her contracted hours,’ the tribunal said. ‘That attitude seemed to us in these circumstances to align with an attitude of impatience with ill-health absence.’
The tribunal also found that Raja’s absence and requests to work from home, along with her ‘working her contractual hours and no more in the office’, led Newman to decide she was ‘not a Starling person’.
Newman was also found to have ‘brought forward the dismissal when he realised that [Raja] was going to ask about adjustments in respect of her medical issues’, however Raja’s three other claims were dismissed.
A Starling spokesperson said: ‘We’re pleased the tribunal found in favour of Starling on three of the five counts. But we are, of course, very disappointed in the finding against us on two counts and do not feel it fairly reflects the Starling culture or how we look after our team.
‘We are in the process of reviewing the judgment with our professional advisers and considering the position in relation to an appeal.’