Saini Appeal successful - Directors Liable in Discrimination case
Employment specialist Jaspal Singh has represented his client Mr Saini in a successfull and highly complex Caste Discrimination Case. Jaspal provides an overview of the case following recent EAT decision.

Saini –v- All Saints Haque Centre (1) Bungay (2) & Paul (3)
Employment Appeal Tribunal – 24 October 2008

Issues

(1) Regulation 5(1) of the Employment Equality (Religion & Belief) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”)
(2) Discrimination by association
(3) Harassment

Facts

Mr Saini worked at an immigration advice centre in Wolverhampton as a senior advice worker. He was of the Hindu faith as was his manager, Mr Chandel. The second and third respondents, Mr Bungay and Mr Paul, were Ravidassis and former employees of the Haque Center.

Mr Bungay and Mr Paul were made redundant but remained on the Board. The composition of the Board changed over time, to the point when it was controlled by Ravidassis. They blamed Mr Chandel for their redundancies as they had thought he had been looking after fellow Hindu employees at the expense of Ravidassian employees.

Mr Bungay and Mr Paul commenced disciplinary proceedings against Mr Chandel. They told Mr Saini that they were only interested in ousting Mr Chandel. He alleged that he was harassed by Mr Bungay and Mr Paul and placed under pressure to provide them with grounds with which to justify their decision to dismiss Mr Chandel. Mr Chandel was dismissed and Mr Saini resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and discriminatory harassment in breach of Regulation 5(1) of the Regulations.

At the Employment Tribunal his dismissal claim was successful. However, he was unsuccessful with his harassment claim. Whilst the Tribunal found that the conduct did satisfy the definition of harassment, it went on to find that there was no evidence to suggest that the Respondents’ conduct had been adversely motivated by the fact that Mr Saini was a Hindu. It found that a non-Hindu in a similar position would have been similarly treated. He was treated in that manner, not because of his religious belief, but because he refused to provide evidence against Mr Chandel. In other words he was the ‘victim’ and not the ‘target’.

Mr Saini appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). He argued that the Tribunal had only considered whether the Respondents’ conduct was on the grounds of his own religion or relief. He pointed out that it had not examined whether the conduct he was subjected to was because of Mr Chandel’s religion or belief. He argued that he was being harassed by association, referring to the case of Coleman –v- Attridge Law. In this case, the Claimant had been successful bringing a claim of unlawful harassment where she had been harassed on the grounds of her son’s disability.

Decision

Mr Saini’s appeal was successful. The EAT felt that the Regulations had been breached, both on the grounds of harassment and on basis of another’s (Mr. Chandel’s) religous beliefs, i.e.) by association. The EAT felt this interpretation was consistent with the original European directive and the Advocate General’s opinion in Coleman –v- Attridge Law.