Centric HR Limited’s Post

White Executive Awarded £40,000 in Discrimination Case Against Indian Boss A recent employment tribunal has ruled in favour of Nicola Blackwell, a white accountancy firm executive, awarding her over £40,000 in compensation. The case centred around allegations of race discrimination against her Indian boss, Varsha Kapoor, for exclusion from online meetings. Blackwell, who joined Smart Tax & Accountancy in August 2021, claimed that Kapoor and a colleague were deliberately leaving her out of Microsoft Teams calls. She also alleged that Kapoor spoke about her in Hindi to another colleague, further isolating her. The situation escalated when Blackwell raised her concerns with the company owner, Ashwin Juneja, unaware that he was Kapoor's son. This revelation put a strain on their professional relationship. Despite passing her probation, Blackwell continued to experience issues, including being blamed for a payroll error she claimed was made by Kapoor. In November 2021, Blackwell filed an informal grievance, suggesting her treatment was racially motivated. The company dismissed Blackwell's complaints, with Juneja stating she had "wasted a lot of his time." As tensions rose, Blackwell submitted a formal grievance in February 2022, citing continued exclusion from team communications. In April 2022, Blackwell was dismissed, ostensibly for a "lack of due care and attention" in her work. However, the tribunal found this explanation unconvincing. While Employment Judge Callum Cowx ruled that Blackwell's treatment was not directly due to her being White British, he concluded that she was subjected to victimisation. The judge determined that her dismissal was motivated by her complaints of racial discrimination against Kapoor. The case highlights the complexities of workplace relationships, particularly in small, family-run businesses, and the importance of addressing discrimination claims fairly and thoroughly. A robust and impartial HR department could have potentially mediated the situation, ensuring proper investigation of complaints and encouraging better communication between all parties, possibly preventing the escalation that led to costly legal action. Jacqui Adams, MBA ✅ Holly Haddock Assoc. CIPD ✅ Kim McMillan, MSc. MCIPD ✅ #employmentlaw #tribunal #hr #humanresources

Z v Y ([2024] EAT 63): A Reminder on Constructive Dismissal and Discrimination Claims This recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case highlights the importance of tribunals considering the full scope of a claimant's discrimination claims, even when a list of issues is agreed upon. It emphasises that tribunals should look beyond an agreed list of issues to ensure a claimant's discrimination claims are fully considered. If the claim form suggests discriminatory dismissal, tribunals should address it even if not explicitly listed. #EmploymentLaw #ConstructiveDismissal #Discrimination https://lnkd.in/etM4325C

Are Your Leaders Trained to Avoid Retaliation? 🛑 One wrong comment can cost a company big time. In this case, a VP denied rehire to a former employee because she filed a discrimination charge – resulting in a hefty EEOC suit. 💡 HR’s Role: Guide every leader on what’s off-limits to say, especially during rehire decisions. Retaliation blunders are preventable, but it starts with the right training and policy in place. #HR #Retaliation #EmploymentLaw https://lnkd.in/eSusuu5B

𝐏𝐨𝐒𝐇 𝐀𝐜𝐭: 𝐏𝐈𝐋 𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐁𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐚𝐲 𝐇𝐂 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐂𝐂 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 Protect members of internal complaints committees (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Protection and Redressal) Act, 2013, in private offices on par with those in the public sector, a public interest ligation has urged Bombay High Court. Former corporate executive Janaki Chaudhry headed the POSH committee at her former company for 2.5 years and “firsthand” experienced challenges an ICC member faces. “As a private employee, she felt she was targeted and unfairly dealt with due to the decisions taken by her as presiding officer," the petition states. Aggrieved by "the state of affairs" in the private sector regarding the POSH Act, she approached activist lawyer Abha Singh and they filed the PIL. Their petition says the Act provides for mandatory establishment of ICC at workplaces with 10 or more employees to investigate sexual harassment complaints. ICC is bestowed with powers of a civil court. But "anomalous situation" is created where ICC members, who are on the payroll of a private workplace, are expected to function like a court without being provided requisite safeguards. “Unlike their public sector counterparts, they can be terminated at random, with a mere three- month severance pay or even without any such way in certain cases," it adds. The PIL says the present law "leaves room for arm-twisting" of ICC members by senior management in the form of arbitrary transfers, termination and victimization in unrelated areas of work. Among the prayers, the petitioners have sought to declare ICC members are public servants and have the same protection as their public sector counterparts. Also, they want a commission set up to review "deficiencies" in the Act and make recommendations on "protection from persecution and harassment of ICC members".  

Tribunal News 📑 In a significant Employment Tribunal (ET) decision this month, a claimant was awarded over £50,000 after enduring sexist remarks at work, with the tribunal firmly ruling that the comments amounted to both sex-based discrimination and harassment. A quick summary: Between August and November 2022, the claimant witnessed her colleagues referring to women as ‘birds’ and was also asked when she was going to have a baby. She would also hear her colleagues openly discussing matters of a sexual nature, and was locked out of the office on one occasion. Following misconduct allegations, the claimant was suspended for several months before being dismissed. The CEO of the Company disciplined her without attending any of the relevant meetings, and the Company imposed a 12-month written warning on her record, which contradicted the usual 6-month period. The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant. In addition the Company had failed to reasonably comply with the ACAS code on disciplinary and grievance procedures. This resulted in a 20% uplift (an avoidable £7,000) on the amount awarded to the claimant. This case is particularly relevant with the new duty to prevent sexual harassment legislation coming into effect on 26th October 2024, requiring employers to take ‘reasonable steps’ to protect employees. This case also highlights the importance of following disciplinary and grievance procedures, to safeguard both Companies and their employees. Need advice on how the incoming legislation on sexual harassment can affect your business? Thinking about reviewing your disciplinary and grievance procedures? Reach out to our team of experts at info@kanehr.co.uk, or call us on 01252 816644. We look forward to hearing from you! 💜 #KaneHR #EmploymentTribunal #EmploymentLaw #SexualHarassment #Harassment #Disciplinary #ACAS

🌟 Excited to share that I had the opportunity to participate in the insightful webinar on the "Prevention of sexual harrasment at the workplace"organised by Legal Vidhiya on 15 sep 2024 . During this webinar i learned about several laws that addresses sexual harrasment at workplace including. 1:The sexual harrasment of women at workplace (prevention, prohibition and Redressal)act 2013: This act aims to create a safe work environment for women by protecting them from sexual harrasment.This act also provides for the establishment of internal complaints committees and local complaint committees. 2 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE: Section 354A of IPC addresses sexual harrasment as a crime and provides penalties for those convicted.Penalties include imprisonment and fines. 3THE POSH ACT:The POSH ACT defines a workplace as any place an employee visit during the course of their employment, including transportation provided by the employer. (∆)If someone is being sexually harressed she can. • Report the incident to the authorities at her job or school •File a complaint with internal complaints committees or Local complaint committees within 3 months of incident. •Ask your employer what will happen if you file a complaint. •File a charge with a govt agency,such as the equal employment opportunity commission (EEOC). A big thanks to Sakshi Kothari ,Sakshi Sharma for such a valuable information.

A judge has dismissed an appeal over an employment tribunal that found a council racially discriminated against an employee, the BBC reports. It continues: A panel in April 2023 found "race played a part" in decisions made by Ruth Lake, a senior member of staff at Leicester City Council, in relation to social worker Bindu Parmar. The authority's appeal was dismissed on Tuesday on all its 11 grounds. Mrs Parmar, a British national of Indian origin, claimed she was discriminated against after she was made the subject of a disciplinary investigation in January 2021. A report into the tribunal in 2023 said Mrs Parmar was accused of not acting in line with leadership standards but the panel found there was "nothing of substance" to start an investigation and that there was "no other credible explanation" for the way she was treated. The local authority argued in its appeal that the panel had misapplied the law, used insufficient grounds to shift the burden of proof on to the authority during the tribunal and failed to show adequate reasoning for its conclusion. In his published appeal judgement summary, Judge James Tayler said: "The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in holding that the burden of proof had shifted to the respondent to disprove discrimination and that it had failed to do so." Concluding his 37-page long published report, the judge said: "I regret that this judgment has ended up being so long; I have not had the time to make it any shorter. "If I had, I might merely have said that this is just the type of appeal that the Court of Appeal warned against in [another case]." The judge referenced mention of the "correct approach" to interpreting employment tribunals which had been reiterated by the Court of Appeal, stating they must be read "fairly and as a whole" and not focusing on passages in isolation. A link to the judgment is in the comments. #hr #humanresources #hrdirector #hrmanager

Key POSH Act Cases: Defining Workplace Harassment and Legal Precedents 1. Same-Sex Harassment Case Overview: An employee filed a sexual harassment complaint against a same-gender colleague. The ICC found the respondent guilty. Challenge: The respondent argued the POSH Act doesn't cover same-gender harassment. Court's Ruling: The Calcutta High Court ruled that the POSH Act includes same-gender harassment, recognizing societal changes. Reference: Dr. Malabika Bhattacharjee v. Internal Complaints Committee, Vivekananda College and Ors. 2. Definition of Workplace in the Digital Work World Case Overview: An employee filed a complaint against a colleague in another state. The bank's disciplinary authority conducted an inquiry. Challenge: The accused argued the harassment didn't occur at the workplace and happened after work hours. Court's Ruling: The court ruled that digital communication makes different branches a single workplace, and harassment can occur after hours. Reference: Sanjeev Mishra vs. Disciplinary Authority & General Manager 3. Improper Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) Case Overview: A student filed a complaint, but the ICC was improperly constituted per AICTE regulations. Challenge: The complainant argued the ICC didn't meet composition requirements. Court's Ruling: The court set aside the ICC's report, emphasizing regulatory compliance. Reference: Ruchika Kedia vs. The Internal Complaints, Goa Institute of Management 4. Victim’s Testimony Sufficiency Case Overview: A guest instructor was found guilty of molestation based on the victim's testimony. Challenge: The respondent argued the testimony alone was insufficient. Court's Ruling: The court ruled a credible victim's testimony is sufficient in a departmental inquiry. Reference: Bhuwan Chandra Pandey vs. Union Of India And Others 5. Internal Committee and Moral Policing Case Overview: An employer's harassment complaint was dismissed, but the ICC recommended disciplinary action for inappropriate conduct. Challenge: The complainant challenged the ICC’s recommendation and the chargesheet. Court's Ruling: The court ruled the ICC can't recommend actions for consensual relationships. Reference: Bibha Pandey vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. #POSHAct #WorkplaceSafety #SexualHarassment #LegalPrecedents #GenderEquality #WorkplaceEthics #EmployeeRights #HarassmentPrevention #InclusiveWorkplace #DigitalWorkplace #EmploymentLaw #WorkplaceJustice #LegalAwareness #HRCompliance #WorkplaceCulture

In many organizations, HR professionals often wield considerable authority, sometimes forgetting that they are also integral parts of the team they serve. As representatives, they play a crucial role in fostering effective communication between employers and employees. However, it's unfortunate when they misuse their power and resort to discrimination. Let's remember that HR should be champions of fairness, not fear. #NeverFearHR #SpeakUpForJustice

Improper constitution of ICC: Dear HRs/management/ concerned authorities, whoever is responsible to constitute Internal Committee please check the below observation by the Judge in one of the cases: “In so far as clause (d) of Regulation 4(1) of the said Regulations is concerned, it is the case of Respondents No.1 and 3 that Prof. Nila Nayak, Senior HR Professional with 20 years experience (External Member) was made part of the ICC. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that Ms. Nila Nayak was a member of some non-government organizations or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment. Besides, the affidavit states that Ms. Nila Nayak was a Professor at the Institution. According to us, therefore, there is no compliance with sub-clause (d) of Regulation 4(1) of the said Regulations, as well”. So as far as inducting External Member is concerned there were two important points noted: Firstly, External Member has no experience in dealing with such cases or a part of any NGO who is working for women related issues. Secondly, External member was a faculty member of that institution even if she was a guest faculty then too her association with the said institution was established & hence she cannot be an external Member. Please check the member’s eligibility criteria of ICs constituted in your organisations.