Employment Law

Ms Hashmi has a strong academic background in Employment Law including a Master’s degree which has been amplified by extensive experience of conducting trials in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal, including lengthy hearings involving complex issues of law and fact.

Ms Hashmi has extensive experience of representing public and private sector employees in internal disciplinary hearings:

• Unfair Dismissal and Wrongful Dismissal
• Redundancy (individual and collective)
• TUPE
• Discrimination and Victimisation
• Whistle blowing
• Restrictive covenants

Particular interest in:

• Discrimination Law including Sex, Race, Disability, Religion or Belief, Sexual Orientation
• Representing medical professionals in actions against NHS Hospital Trusts

Experience

Successfully represented:

• several mid-level managers in separate claims against a well known brewery
• large nationwide stationary supplier in several separate claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal

Unfair dismissal within the NHS

Successfully represented a Consultant Plastic Surgeon in a lengthy hearing where the NHS Trust was represented by a leading KC. Issues related to MHPS and the application of certain disciplinary policies within the NHS.

Unfair dismissal

• Successfully represented the Respondent Trustees of a community organisation in an unfair dismissal/ wrongful dismissal claim where the original schedule of loss put the claim at over £90,000. The case raised issues relating to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and illegality.
• Successfully represented a commercial director against a leading bank in a claim for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, harassment and victimisation.

Disability Discrimination

Successfully argued that following the amendments made by the DDA in December 2005 persons with cancer establish disability from the point at which they have that condition: thus effectively from diagnosis pursuant to Schedule 1 Paragraph 6A of the DDA. Persons diagnosed with cancer were deemed to suffer from a disability within the scope of the DDA, and hence be a disabled person, irrespective of whether they exhibited symptoms of their disease.

Discrimination in membership of an association

Advised a Community organisation in relation to whether it could limit its membership based on a protected characteristic in particular sections 101 and 107 of the Equality Act 2010 and whether such a restriction on membership would fall foul of Charities Law.

Employment law and immigration law

• Advised a leading university in relation to whether it could continue employing an employee whose leave to remain had expired but claimed to have made an application to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for a residence card as the dependant of an EEA National.
• Represented a Claimant in unfair dismissal proceedings against HM Revenue and Customs where the dismissal was due to the Claimant allegedly undertaking employment in breach of the immigration rules.

Unilateral variation of contract

Represented 600 + Union members in a claim for unfair dismissal and unilateral variation of contract and argued that a large supermarket chain was not permitted to rely upon a provision in its employee handbook which reserved the right to vary contractual terms in order to introduce a new pay structure.

Sexual orientation discrimination

Successfully argued that the Claimant had been subjected to unlawful harassment i.e. homophobic banter even though he was not perceived to be homosexual. Further argued, successfully that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment) Regulations 2008 SI 2008/656 have inserted sections 6(2B) to 6(2D) into the SDA 1975 which effectively means that an employer is liable for third party harassment thereby reverting to the position of third party harassment in the case of Burton v DeVere Hotels.

Appeals based on new evidence

Successfully argued that the ‘new evidence’ adduced by the Claimant during the course of a hearing can amount to a ‘question of law’ and was significant enough to justify reconsidering the

case. Therefore the Tribunal erred in law in that it based its findings on ‘new evidence’ adduced by the Claimant at the hearing which the Respondent did not have the opportunity to rebut.

Sex discrimination

Represented a Claimant in proceedings against a well known firm of solicitors in claims for sexual harassment following incidents at the firms Christmas party, with the firms partner’s being identified as an individual Respondent.

TUPE

Successfully represented 4 Claimants in a lengthy trial. The Claimants alleged that following the transfer of their employment the transferee made substantial changes to their working conditions to their material detriment contrary to Regulation 4(9). Succeeded in securing approximately £100,000 in compensation for the Claimants.

Race and religious discrimination including harrassment

Successfully represented a Solicitor against a leading corporate / commercial firm of solicitors in a claim for race and religious discrimination including substantial harassment leading to a significant award of compensation including aggravated damages awarded against the firm as the first Respondent and the Managing Partner as a second Respondent.

Sex discrimination and harrassment

Successful defended a nationally recognised chain food production company against claims of sexual harassment and sex discrimination against the company and the Managing Director as the second Respondent.

Notable Cases

Mr Z Ali v Leeds Taxi Owners Ltd 1800150/2020 – What is a Worker? following the Uber Judgement

In one of the first cases of its type, following the Supreme Court’s Uber judgment, successful in defending the Respondent company against a claim brought by one of its drivers who claimed that he was a worker and covered by the Uber judgment. Successfully persuaded the Tribunal that the driver was not a worker, and therefore did not qualify for the benefits that follow such as entitlement to annual leave, national minimum wage etc. A link to judgment to the judgment can be found by clicking here and the written reasons can be found by clicking here.

Disability Discrimination – Failure to make reasonable adjustments to absence policy for disabled nurse.

Miss C Sutton v Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust 1800471/2017. For the Judgment click here. Synopsis can be found here.