An immigration advice business which sponsored a solicitor's UK visa discriminated against her because of race, an employment tribunal has ruled.

Employment tribunal

Source: iStock

The judgment states that Mayuri Manjula, who originally qualified in India, worked for North London business Immigration and Nationality Services Limited as a business development manager. Her day-to-day role involved handling immigration case work for law firm IANS Solicitors Limited, at which she was employed after self-funding her qualification and admission in England and Wales. The firm obtained a sponsor licence and Manjula's visa was extended. 

She brought her claim as a litigant in person after being dismissed by her manager Ian Refugio, who owned both IANS businesses. She claimed that, as a non-British national, she was treated less favourably than a British national. 

Ruling in her favour, employment judge Louise Brown said: ‘We found that Mr Refugio ... had a pattern of dismissing other migrant employees without paying them their notice monies and/or other monies owed. At the date of this hearing, over a year and a half since the claimant was dismissed from her employment ... she has still not been paid the wages she is owed.'

Refugio, the judge found, 'would simply decide not to pay sums of money lawfully due to departed migrant employees'.

The tribunal heard that Manjula handed in her resignation after being offered a position at big four firm KPMG. The judgment described Refugio’s response in the meeting as ‘aggressive’. It added: ‘On the balance of probabilities we find that the respondent, Mr Refugio, did react in an intimidating and threatening manner, that he raised his voice, slammed his hands on the table and made the accusations set out.’

Manjula had been willing to work her four weeks’ notice, but the firm said it wished her to leave immediately because of a ‘breakdown in trust and confidence’. This was not a genuine belief, the judge said, adding: ‘Instead, we found they would simply not entertain her working her notice as she had offended Mr Refugio by obtaining alternative employment.’

Manjula’s dismissal ‘was both procedurally and substantively unfair’, the judge found. Her claim of direct race discrimination also succeeded. The judgment said that, by definiton, the firm sponsored the visas only of migrant workers. 'We found that it was by reason of her race, and being a non-British national migrant worker, that led to Mr Refugio being so affronted by her resignation and subjecting her to the treatment that he did.’