A paralegal, who could not work full-time due to her disability, has succeeded in an employment claim after a judge found she was made redundant for being a part-time employee.

Employment tribunal

S Kauser, as she is referred to in the employment tribunal judgment, started working for Oldham-based firm Inaaya Solicitors Limited as a paralegal from September 2016. Her claims against the firm for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and that she was treated less favourably as a part-time worker succeeded. Her claims of pregnancy discrimination and sex discrimination were dismissed.

The firm accepted that Kauser had been disabled since 2019. Medical evidence stated she was not to work a full-time role.

In 2022, following a ‘significant’ decline in road traffic accident work, members of staff in that department, including Kauser, were told their roles were at risk of redundancy. In a consultation meeting, job share options were discussed, but later Kauser was told no other employee wished to job share and she was dismissed by way of redundancy.

Employment judge Ficklin, sitting at the Manchester employment tribunal, said the panel found the firm's witnesses ‘not to be credible on several evidential points’.

The firm claimed Kauser was made redundant because, if she was to move to housing disrepair, she would need to work full-time. However the employment tribunal found there was ‘no genuine redundancy situation’ adding ‘that the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was not because of redundancy but because she was part-time’.

The judge said: ‘The claimant’s redundancy was unfair because she could have continued in her role as a part-time worker. The claimant was the only part-time fee-earner and was told that she must become full-time (Mon-Thurs) to avoid redundancy. This was not a genuine criterion because of the potential for job share and because the business almost immediately advertised for a part-time position well within the claimant’s competence. The respondent did not adopt a reasonable selection decision.’

The judgment added that the firm ‘had an inconsistent approach to staff permission to work part time’.

Finding there was no objective justification for Kauser’s dismissal, the judge said: ‘The claimant was dismissed. That dismissal was a detriment. The respondent’s own case is that the claimant was dismissed because she was a part-time employee. The fact that that reason given may have been a sham or part of a non-genuine redundancy exercise does not change the culpability of that act.’

A remedy hearing, if not agreed, will be held in September.