Miss Z Lu v KPMG UK Ltd: 3202004/2018 and 3200343/2019
| Judgment Date | 01 June 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Religion or Belief Discrimination |
| Citation | 3202004/2018 and 3200343/2019 |
| Published date | 18 June 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
Case Numbers: 3202004/2018 &
3200343/2019
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Miss Z Lu
Respondent: KPMG UK Ltd
Heard at: East London Hearing Centre
On: 26-29 November, 3 December & (in chambers)
4 December 2019
Before: Employment Judge C Lewis
Members: Mr T Burrows
Mrs B K Saund
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr K Wilson (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:-
(1) The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.
(2) The Claimant’s claim for disability discrimination contrary to section
15 of the Equality Act discrimination arising from disability fails and
is dismissed.
(3) The Claimant’s claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments
contrary to section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 fail and are
dismissed.
(4) The Claimant’s claim for disability related harassment contrary to
section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 fails and is dismissed.
(5) The Claimant’s claim for direct race discrimination contrary to
section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 fails and is dismissed.
Case Numbers: 3202004/2018 &
3200343/2019
2
(6) The claims for direct discrimination because of religion or belief,
and sex discrimination are dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant
REASONS
1 By a claim form presented on 16 September 2018 (case number 3202004/2018)
the Claimant brought complaints of discrimination, and harassment. The Claimant’s
employment terminated on 14 November 2018 and she presented a second claim on
10 February 2019 (case number 3200343/2019) bringing complaints of unfair
dismissal, disability discrimination and claims for notice pay and holiday pay.
2 The combined claims were considered at a preliminary hearing on 23 May 2019
before Regional Employment Judge Taylor where the issues were clarified and
following that discussion a draft list of issues were prepared by the Respondent and
sent to the Claimant. The Respondent’s position at this hearing was that having not
received anything to the contrary from the Claimant it had understood this list of issues
to be agreed. On the first day of this final hearing the Claimant confirmed that she
wished to withdraw the claims for discrimination because of religion or belief and the
claim for sex discrimination and clarified that the matters raised as sex discrimination
were simply background in respect of which she relied on to support her claim for race
discrimination. She confirmed that in respect of her claim for direct discrimination under
section 13 she was comparing herself to Mr James Finnegan, a male non-Chinese
employee not to Mr Elvin Zhao, other than that she confirmed that the list of issues
stood as drafted by the Respondent.
3 Those issues were as follows:
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – s.94 ERA 1996
3.1 What was the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal? The Respondent
asserts that the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason namely
conduct. The Claimant asserts that there was no potentially fair reason.
3.2 Did the Respondent, at the relevant time, have a genuine belief that the
Claimant was guilty of the alleged misconduct?
3.3 If so, was that belief reasonably held?
3.4 At the time the belief was formed, had the Respondent carried out as
much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in all the
circumstances?
3.5 Alternatively, if the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was not conduct,
was the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal some other substantial
reason [“SOSR”] due to the breakdown of trust and confidence between
the Claimant and the Respondent?
Case Numbers: 3202004/2018 &
3200343/2019
3
3.6 Did the Respondent, in all the circumstances, act reasonably or
unreasonably in treating that as sufficient reason for dismissing the
employee? In particular, was dismissal within the band of reasonable
responses? The Claimant relies on the following particular matters in
support of the contention that the dismissal was unfair:
3.6.1 She could not sign the form updating her health status (AXA form).
3.6.2 The Respondent did not recognise or accept that she had
depression when making its decision to dismiss.
3.6.3 The Respondent demanded that the Claimant sign a consent form
in order to update them on her health status.
3.6.4 During the disciplinary process the Claimant received no help in
regards to her health. For example, she was supposed to have a
face-to-face meeting with the case manager from the insurance
company and should have had cognitive behavioural therapy in
2018.
3.6.5 The disciplinary hearing was not long enough for all matters to be
considered.
3.6.6 The start of the disciplinary process was delayed [by three weeks].
3.6.7 The investigation did not include matters raised during the
grievance procedure.
3.6.8 The Respondent refused to change [or remove] Ms Angela Katsi
as the investigation officer.
3.6.9 The Claimant did not receive the full investigation file before the
disciplinary hearing.
3.6.10 Ms Katsi did not interview relevant witnesses, for example she
should have interviewed Jonathan Bingham and the Banking Audit
class of 2015 sponsor (who was involved in the learning with
leaders mentorship programme).
3.6.11 The Claimant did not receive timely updates of the progress of the
disciplinary procedure.
3.6.12 The disciplinary hearing did not take into account that the Claimant
attended an informal meeting on 27 March 2018 with Ms Ginty,
Ms Claridge and Mr Brunton (by telephone) to discuss a
breakdown of communication. The Claimant will say that that was
an important omission because it would have demonstrated that
there were improvements being made towards the working
relationships.
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
To continue reading
Request your trial