An employment tribunal heard that an asthmatic attorney who insisted on working no more than her contracted hours was terminated from her prestigious banking position after she took sick leave and requested to work from home.
Gulnaz Raja was criticized by her ‘demanding’ supervisor, Matt Newman, who ‘valued’ late-night office workers.
Instead of participating in the “long hours culture” at Starling Bank, asthmatic Miss Raja would come five minutes late for board meetings, forty minutes after her boss.
The tribunal was informed that despite Mr. Newman’s emphasis on lengthy hours, she would leave work at the time stipulated in her contract.
Mr. Newman became ‘impatient’ with the 36-year-old when she felt ill, took time off, and began seeking to work from home, according to testimony presented at the court.
After finding she was “not a Starling person,” he sacked her from her £76,000-per-year position as deputy corporate secretary.
Gulnaz Raja successfully sued her former employer, Starling Bank, for handicap discrimination after she was fired for wanting to work her contracted hours in the office.
Miss Raja will now receive compensation for handicap discrimination after successfully suing the bank.
The Central London tribunal heard that Miss Raja, a lawyer since 2010, began working for the bank in July 2019 and successfully completed her probation period three months later.
Mr. Newman, the chief administrative officer and company secretary, commended her for her hard work and expressed his eagerness to work with her in the future.
Nonetheless, he became rapidly disappointed with her performance.
The tribunal heard that [Miss Raja] stated that [Mr. Newman] was demanding about individuals being present and on time and that there was a culture of excessive hours.
The hearing was informed that for board meetings beginning at 8.30am, he would arrive at 7.45am to set up, but Miss Raja would arrive five minutes early.
“She stated that she was unable to remain in the office beyond her contracted hours, but she would log on and work later in the evening,” the tribunal was told, with the panel noting instances in which she had worked lengthy hours from home.
Mr. Newman, who is also a lawyer, stated at the hearing that she exhibited a “lack of ownership,” that her performance was “decent but not dynamic,” and that she “did not execute to the level I expected or appear to be seizing the position and making it her own.”
Matt Newman, chief administrative officer
The tribunal heard that by November, Mr. Newman was ‘disappointed’ that Miss Raja was displaying ‘little interest and ability’ in the most sophisticated areas of her position; however, no particular examples of Miss Raja’s deficiencies were provided.
The court was informed that Miss Raja acquired a cough owing to the ‘very cold air conditioning in the office’ and requested that desks be moved away from a vent, citing her asthma.
In November, she saw her primary care physician for her “persistent” cough and contacted Mr. Newman requesting to work remotely, but received no response.
On December 16, Miss Raja emailed again that she had the flu and was unable to work, but she was again disregarded, as she was throughout the next week.
Miss Raja then returned to work, continuing to work on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day.
The tribunal heard that Miss Raja advised Mr. Newman of two scheduled asthma-related medical visits in the new year.
She received no reaction and told the tribunal that this was ‘punitive’ and indicative of his displeasure with her.
The tribunal heard that Mr. Newman denied a work-from-home request in late January, citing a “office culture” and “team culture” at Starling Bank that required employees to primarily work in the office.
Employment justices at the London tribunal court (shown) partially sided with Ms. Raja.
The panel was informed that she reported for work on March 9, 2020, and requested a meeting with Mr. Newman to discuss her health and safety concerns regarding the spread of the Covid pandemic.
However, upon entering a meeting room, she was abruptly removed and told she was “not a Starling person.”
She filed claims with the employment tribunal against the bank and Mr. Newman, including handicap discrimination, unjust dismissal, and victimization.
Employment Judge Natasha Joffe ruled that she had been discriminated against and stated, ‘We considered that there was sufficient evidence that [Mr. Newman] valued employees who worked long hours in the office.
“He criticized the claimant for quitting work at the conclusion of her allotted hours.”
This attitude looked, under the circumstances, to be consistent with a lack of tolerance for illness-related absences.
It appeared to us that the poor health absence and requests to work from home were part of a larger picture that included Miss Raja working her contracted hours and no more in the office, as well as a number of work-related concerns that prompted Mr. Newman to conclude that she was “not a Starling person.”
The panel concluded that “a total failure” to reply to communications regarding poor health and the lack to express concern or assistance “on a large number of occasions” appeared “designed to discourage sick leave and working from home.”
Miss Raja’s accusations of wrongful termination and victimization were denied.
A hearing to determine compensation will occur at a later date.
</ad-slot