AFH Independent Financial Services Ltd

Case Summary

Mrs Sahota, a litigant in person employed by AFH Independent Financial Services Ltd, brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, victimisation, and harassment. The tribunal found that constructive unfair dismissal succeeded, victimisation claims at paragraphs 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.7 and 6.2.11 succeeded, but the majority of race discrimination claims and all harassment claims were dismissed. The case concerns the claimant's treatment following a race discrimination grievance she raised relating to an interview conducted by a colleague.

The tribunal found that the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence through victimisation following the claimant's protected act of raising a race discrimination grievance. Specifically, the respondent's actions in instructing that Ms Hateley not be interviewed during the grievance investigation and Mr Hudson's statement that the claimant had an ulterior motive were substantially and effectively caused by the protected act. However, the direct race discrimination claims failed because the claimant did not prove facts from which discrimination could be inferred on the balance of probabilities. Harassment claims failed as they were based on the same conduct already found to be victimisation.

• •Constructive unfair dismissal based on breach of implied term of trust and confidence
• •Direct race discrimination claims
• •Victimisation claims under sections 27 and 39 Equality Act 2010
• •Harassment claims under sections 26 and 40 Equality Act 2010
• •Time limits for bringing discrimination and victimisation claims
• •Protected act under s27 Equality Act 2010 (race discrimination grievance)
• •Post-termination victimisation

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimant: Mrs B Sahota and Respondent: AFH Independent Financial Services Limited SITTING AT: Birmingham ON: 8 – 16 December 2025 BEFORE: Employment Judge G Smart sitting alone JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL On hearing from the Claimant and Mr A Johnston (counsel) for the Respondent: 1. The claim of constructive unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds. 2. The claim of constructive dismissal in breach of s27 and 39 Equality Act 2010 as an act of victimisation is well founded and succeeds. 3. The claims for victimisation in breach of sections 27 and 39 Equality Act 2010 at paragraphs 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.7 and 6.2.11 in the list of issues are well founded and succeed. All other victimisation claims fail. 4. All claims of direct race discrimination in breach of sections 13 and 39 Equality Act 2010 listed in paragraphs 4.2.2 – 4.2.6, 4.2.8 – 4.2.12 and 4.2.14 of the list of issues are dismissed upon withdrawal. 5. All remaining claims of direct race discrimination in breach of sections 13 and 39 Equality Act 2010 at paragraphs 4.2.1, 4.2.7 and 4.2.13 are not well founded and are dismissed. 6. The claims of Harassment in breach of sections 26 and 40 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded and are dismissed. REASONS 7. The Claimant requested written reasons by email dated 29 December 2025 of the oral judgment . 8. This was referred to me the same day. I therefore provide the detailed written reasons below. THE ISSUES 9. The list of issues for this case is set out in Annex 1 to this Judgment. 10. These were revisited on day one of the hearing and were clarified and narrowed further. 11. The Respondent conceded that the protected act relied upon for the purpose of the victimisation claims was a protected act in accordance w…