A conveyancer who suggested that a paralegal was interested in a client in a sexual way was harassing her on the basis of her sex, an employment tribunal has found.
Imitiaz Ahmed shouted the comment at the claimant, Ms F Kaiser, after he overheard a conversation between her and the client, Mr H, the tribunal heard.
The claimant took the comment as referring to her being interested in the client in a sexual way. They both worked at Khans Solicitors, established in 1985, which has offices in Ilford and Canary Wharf.
Kaiser has successfully sued Khans for sex discrimination, disability discrimination, automatic unfair dismissal and breach of a contract of employment.
The tribunal at East London Hearing Centre found that in August 2019, the client, who had been seen by one of the partners at the firm, started talking to Kaiser. The claimant politely indicated that she wanted to get on with her work but Khan’s client continued talking about his personal matters.
'At that point, Imitiaz Ahmed, the conveyancer, stood up, clearly annoyed at being disturbed, pointed to the door and said to the claimant “if you’re so into it – you should go elsewhere!”. He also said he was having difficulty concentrating because they were talking to each other.
'The claimant was upset at this suggestion that she was having an intimate conversation with Mr Khan’s client. She expressed this to him once Mr Khan’s client left the office. Mr Ahmed was adamant that he was right and that it was her fault as she and Mr Khan’s client had disturbed him.'
Kaiser also claimed Ahmed had commented, after seeing a photo of her without a headscarf, that if she did not wear her headscarf she might find it easier to attract men. Both Kaiser and Ahmed were practising Muslims.
Khans decided not to call Ahmed as a witness, but said he denied the allegations. 'Imitiaz would have been aware of the importance of the scarf to the claimant and how insulting, humiliating and offensive it would be to suggest that the claimant should go off with a strange man,' the tribunal said.
Kaiser also proved at tribunal that she had been harassed on the basis of her six disabilities by the practice manager at Khans, who had ordered her to rearrange the furniture in the office.
The claimant was dismissed in February 2021 because she had repeatedly advocated for her unpaid wages and because she was disabled, and Khans did not want to continue to employ someone who was likely to be off sick again, the tribunal held.
A further complaint of race/nationality discrimination made by the claimant failed and was dismissed.
