A national firm has finally been cleared of charges of victimising a former employee after a case stretching five years and requiring a seven-day hearing.

Employment Judge Maxwell, sitting at the Watford tribunal, dismissed all allegations made by former case worker Manjeet Puar against national firm Duncan Lewis Solicitors Ltd.

Puar claimed to have discriminated against during her three months with the firm and deliberately not allocated work she should have been. But the judge found that Puar’s treatment had been nothing to do with race or religion, describing her allegations as ‘bizarre’ and ‘vague’. An allegation she was called a ‘bitch’ by a colleague was found not to have happened, and there was no evidence to support her claim that co-workers spread false or malicious rumours about her.

The tribunal heard that Puar, representing herself, had applied for the role of criminal trainee solicitor with the firm in 2016 but was taken on in the family and childcare team on a three-month probation. She would be offered a solicitor’s training contract if she passed. 

The judge said that Puar had a ‘good opinion of herself and a low opinion of many others she worked with’, and had rejected the firm’s attempt to start her with simpler tasks and gradually allocate more difficult work.

At her first probation review meeting she had complained about having work taken away from her because she was inexperienced and said the childcare work she was given was ‘hardly rocket science’.

The judge said it was clear that Puar’s supervisor felt these comments were dismissive and that she did not appreciate being dictated to. But Puar’s contention that her bosses looked down on her was ‘wholly unrealistic’, the judge said, and they had in fact formed a very good impression of her.

Despite complaining about a lack of work, Puar said she was too busy to complete urgent tasks, and the tribunal found that she chose not to do certain work, especially that which was not billable.

Puar was also found to have sent a witness statement she had drafted to a client without any approval from a solicitor.

Judge Maxwell said: ‘The claimant thought about the cases as her own, rather than being the solicitor’s. The need for approval by a solicitor appeared to her a technicality rather than an important matter of substance.’

Within weeks of Puar starting, there was said to be an uncomfortable atmosphere in the Luton office where Puar worked, with colleagues saying she was rude and aggressive. A further probation review also included comments on the quality of her written work and telephone manner with clients.

The judge said Puar ‘could not, in light of all that had happened, believe that she had passed her probation’. He dismissed her claims that no-one had told her what the performance and conduct problems were before she was given one week’s notice at the end of her probation. She appealed against her dismissal, saying the firm had treated her as a ‘slave’ and she was discriminated against because of her race and religion. The appeal hearing lasted five and a half hours and resulted in a 26-page report upholding the decision to dismiss her.