Top Nottingham lawyer found to have discriminated against female employee

A pregnant paralegal has been found to have been wrongly accused of benefit fraud by one of Nottingham’s top lawyers.

An employment tribnal found that Ash Bhatia, of Bhatia Best, was wrong to believe that Elaina Brown was guilty of benefit fraud, describing it as “neither a reasonable belief nor an honest belief” and that she has been the victim of pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

Bhatia is the managing director of Bhataia Best – one of Nottingham’s largest law firms. The practice employs over 50 solicitors across three sites in the city.

Brown had been a paralegal in the family law department between July 2016 and August 2017. The tribunal heard that she found out she was pregnant with her fifth child and that she told the company the next month

The tribunal also heard that Brown had a difficult pregnancy and her health deteriorated, meaning she had absences from work.

Brown had a check-up at the hospital on 7 August 2017 which overran, meaning Matthew Best, a director of Bhatia Best, had to take a client meeting on her behalf. This led to an email exchange later that day in which Bhatia voice concerns that the pregnancy might impact on her reliability at work.

The day after, Bhatia and Brown had a meeting. This was followed by Bhatia calling the Deparment for Work and Pensions’ fraud hotline to clarify whether his employee was using her married name or the name of ‘Brown’ with regards to credits she was claiming.

In a letter to Brown, Bhatia Best said she had been dismissed for “welfare benefit fraud.

Bhatia added: “You have made a false declaration and/or failed to report a change in your circumstances.” He said this was a criminal offence.

However, the judge said the tribunal didn’t find Bhatia’s belief that Brown had committed a criminal offence was credible.

The judge added that as an experienced solicitor in criminal law “he would be well aware that tax credits are not dealt with by the DWP but by HMRC. He must therefore have realised that he was speaking to the wrong administrative body”.

He added: “The ‘evidence’ to support Mr Bhatia’s belief of criminal activity was flimsy to say the least. Mr Bhatia places reliance on conversations with two junior clerks, neither of whom incidentally have been called to give evidence as to the nature of the discussions, and neither of whom had the full facts before them.

“There is no evidence of any finding of fraud by either the HMRC or DWP and Mr Bhatia’s reliance on their words is unconvincing.”

Judge Ahmed said Brown provided “clear exculpatory evidence”, but her appeal against the dismissal was rejected.

He added that Brown was “perfectly entitled” to call hersef by her maiden name rather than her husband’s name, from whom she had recently separated.

The tribunal found that having failed to provide a “non-discriminatory reason for the treatment”, Brown’s complaint of pregnancy and maternity discrimination should be upheld.

However, the tribunal rejected her complaint of automatic unfair dismissal – saying that pregnancy must be the reason or principal reason for dismissal for this to apply, and here it was just one of the reasons – along with a complaint of direct discrimination which was already covered by the Equality Act claim.

In reponse, Bhatia told Nottinghamshire Live: “”The decision of an employment tribunal is to be respected, but I remain disappointed.

“The tribunal dismissed most of Elaina’s claims as the principal reason for dismissal was not pregnancy.

“A solicitors’ firm must act to the highest standards; comply with the Solicitors Regulation Authority code of conduct, ensure public confidence, and all employees must act honestly.

“In the absence of an explanation from Elaina I believed the DWP. The tribunal said I was hasty and should have believed Elaina.”