Claim: Jerry’s Unfair Dismissal: A Legal Analysis
Claimant: Jerry
Defendant: ABC Solutions
Issue: Whether Jerry has a valid claim for unfair dismissal.
Law
In this regard, the evaluation of Jerry’s case is based on the Employment Rights Act 1996, which gives employees the right not to be unfairly dismissed. If a manager terminates someone unfairly or the reasons are unjustifiable, there may be an accusation of unfair dismissal.
Evaluation
A disagreement with a supervisor during the most critical meeting with the client led to Jerry’s dismissal from ABC Solutions and the loss of a significant client. The Employment Tribunal would examine the facts to establish fair dismissal. The question that one needs to address is whether ABC Solutions had a justifiable reason for sacking Jerry. Such behavioral changes like irritation and latecomers were observed; however, the reason for these changes is crucially essential (Pardede, 2022). ABC Solutions may have to demonstrate that they provided enough support to their employees or eliminated the root causes of their overwork and stress. Jerry’s dismissal could be regarded as unfair if the company did not meet its obligation towards him.
In addition, the Tribunal will determine if ABC Solutions conducted a fair process on the dismissal of Jerry. The fact that some of his colleagues reported his inappropriate conduct to the HR department and the company did not respond officially casts doubt on the rigor of the firm’s internal procedures. Furthermore, if ABC Solutions failed to address these incidents adequately, this would add to the unfairness of the dismissal.
Outcome
In case the Tribunal determines there was no justification for Jerry’s dismissal or there was unfair procedure, some scenarios are possible. Jerry may also be eligible for damages if financial loss arises from the firing. Alternatively, the judge might give a directive to reinstate him to his former or similar position in the company.
The Tribunal needs to be objective and consider the circumstances in which Jerry was dismissed to give a fair judgment. To sum it up, this aim requires employers to abide by the Employment Rights Act 1996 guidelines. ABC Solutions will be analyzed systematically to reveal what could have prompted Jerry’s termination. The legality offers guidelines for determining whether the dismissal was fair regarding the reasons for termination and procedure. Jerry’s compensation and ABC Solutions’ liability will depend greatly on the Tribunal.
Claim: Lisa’s Wrongful Dismissal: A Legal Analysis
Claimant: Lisa
Defendant: ABC Solutions
Issue: Whether Lisa has a valid claim for wrongful dismissal.
Law
The law for assessing Lisa’s case is based on the principle of wrongful discharge. Employer may breach the terms of the employment contract in the course of termination procedures or with wrongful notice.
Evaluation
Lisa’s termination is due to the company’s reorganization, as stated in a one-week termination notice. Therefore, the Employment Tribunal should investigate whether ABC Solutions had followed appropriate procedures and whether the restructuring was a genuine reason for terminating Lisa’s service.
The proper procedures for dismissal usually involve clearly communicating the reason for dismissal, following any contractual notice periods, and giving the employee a chance to review the dismissal or appeal (Dattaraju, 2020). Failure in any of these areas by ABC Solutions can amount to a breach of employment contract and the basis for a wrongful dismissal claim. Finally, the reason for Lisa’s dismissal due to company reorganization should be closely examined. It may also be seen as wrongful because ABC Solution cannot prove why they need to restructure, and the restructuring was a mere pretense to get Lisa out of the company.
Outcome
If the Employment Tribunal recognizes the wrongfulness of Lisa’s dismissal, several probable consequences may arise. Therefore, Lisa might be eligible for recovery of damages arising from the breach and any amount she had been paid during the notice period. Compensation could include payment of salary, benefits, or other compensable awards that Lisa would have received if the legal steps were appropriately implemented.
The Tribunal may also order ABC Solutions to reinstate Lisa back to her former position or another position in the organization. However, the intent is to repair this contractual breach and ensure reasonable compensation for damages arising from Lisa’s unfair dismissal.
In this regard, Lisa’s potential claim of wrongful dismissal hinges on scrutiny of whether ABC Solutions followed the right procedure in terminating Lisa and the legitimacy of the reasons for firing Lisa as a CEO. The decision made by the Employment Tribunal will be quite significant in determining whether the dismissal of Lisa was indeed unlawful and what the right steps to remedy the breach of her employment contract are.
Question 2: Malek and Yasmin’s Rights under the Equality Act 2010
Claim: Malek’s Discrimination: A Legal Analysis
Claimant: Malek
Defendant: TechWave Innovations
Issue: Whether Malek has a valid claim for discrimination based on ethnicity and performance evaluation.
Law
Malek could support his potential claim on the basis of the Equality Act 2010. This Act comprises direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and the discrimination that originates from the disability.
Evaluation
Malek is a young software engineer of South Asian descent working at TechWave Innovations who finds himself excluded from team discussions, subjected to racist comments about his origins, and inexplicably poor performance appraisal. Employment Tribunal would examine whether these actions had anything to do with his belongingness to the South Asian community. Direct discrimination happens when an employee is unfairly targeted by race/ethnicity (Basáñez, 2019). Direct discrimination is implied by the exclusion of Malek and disparaging remarks against him. The Tribunal should look at Malek’s motives, whether based on his South Asian status.
Moreover, the sudden negative appraisal of Malek’s performance might be a manifestation of indirect discrimination. It could amount to indirect discrimination if the performance standards were set on a whim or on grounds that did not accord Malek the same treatment as his colleagues. In particular, the Tribunal would determine if such actions created discrimination against those of South Asian origin.
Outcome
If the Employment Tribunal believes Malik’s case of discrimination to be well-founded, several consequences could follow. Therefore, Malek could be awarded payment for damages due to discriminating treatment (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019). This can include emotional distress, reputational injury, and economic damages from professional harm.
The Tribunal may also order TechWave Innovations to take remedial steps to remove discriminatory practices among its employees. Some measures that may be employed include designing training programs for employees and managers to enhance enlightenment about diversity and avoid future discrimination.
However, it should be noted that the Equality Act 205 emphasizes something else beyond paying damages because it wants to stop discrimination. In conclusion, TechWave Innovations may need to be bold when developing an inclusive work environment that accepts all nationalities with no tolerance for biasness.
In this regard, the basis for Malek’s possible discrimination suit is a detailed review of the circumstances related to his expulsion, derogatory comments, and negative critiques. To this effect, a solid legal setup is provided under the Equality Act 2010 and gives fair treatment toward individual racial groups (Yearby & Mohapatra, 2020). If this, TechWave Innovations is to be held liable, and what sort of redress Malek can secure shall hinge greatly on how the Tribunal will rule regarding the subject.
Claim: Failure by Yasmin to make a reasonable adjustment: a legal analysis.
Claimant: Yasmin
Defendant: TechWave Innovations
Issue: Yasmin’s claim that she was not offered reasonable adjustments.
Law
Concerning Yasmin’s prospective claim, it is contained in The Equality Act 2010, which states that employers must provide reasonable adjustment for disabled employees. The aim is to make sure that individuals with disabilities are not subjected to undue hardships while at their place of work.
Evaluation:
Yasmin, a marketing manager with TechWave Innovations, could not access the office after its renovation as it was not wheelchair friendly. It was hard for her to apply in her work due to the absence of ways of walking or bathrooms. Yasmin’s interaction with Marco has, however, failed to provide sufficient grounds for TechWave innovations to have met its obligations regarding making reasonable adjustments by necessity. A rather straightforward declaration by Marco that the firm “is working on it” without taking any steps towards solving Yasmin’s problems with accessibility is likely going to be perceived as a symptom of either carelessness or an inability to understand how important these issues are.
Currently, employers are double obligated to listen to their employees and adapt to positive changes (Murgia et al., 2020). Yasmin had also been unable to access the required office space, thus adding an extra disadvantage to the already diminishing work performance, as numerous project deadlines would be missed at this time.
Outcome
TechWave Innovations will face various implications if the Employment Tribunal finds out that Yasmin suffered due to an absence of reasonable adjustments. First, the company can be asked to address the accessibility problems at once so that Yasmin will provide services without distractions and hindrances.
Yasmin may sue for damages and get compensation for the financial loss inflicted by the unreasonable adaptation to work. It may be fair that she gets the extra payment, which could go toward unexpected expenses such as health implications and how it affects her at work. In addition, the Tribunal can compel TechWave Innovation to devise measures to avert the recurrence of such kind of discrimination. Such interventions may include training the employees or managers on disability awareness and making reasonable adjustments.
However, it is important to note that the main aim of the Equality Act 2010 goes beyond compensating people who suffer discrimination and aims to alter organizational systems for inclusion (Dattaraju, 2020). If TechWave Innovations is found guilty, they must take precautions against future reoccurrences.
The importance of following the Equality Act 2010 is evident in Yasmin’s potential claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments for her disability. This decision by the Tribunal will go beyond addressing her immediate concerns to build a culture in the organization that appreciates and accommodates people with disabilities.
References
Murgia, A., Bozzon, R., Digennaro, P., Mezihorak, P., Mondon-Navazo, M., & Borghi, P. (2020). Hybrid areas of work between employment and self-employment: Emerging challenges and future research directions. Frontiers in Sociology, 4, 86.
Basáñez, S. L. (2019). The synergy between employment policies and cooperatives with regard to new forms of work. An overview based on Spanish constitutional law. Boletín de la Asociación Internacional de Derecho Cooperativo, (54), 55-73.
Yearby, R., & Mohapatra, S. (2020). Law, structural racism, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), lsaa036.
Dattaraju, A. (2020). Human Resources: A case study of must-have HR Policies, Hypothetical cases, Employment Legal Cases and their Worst-Case Analysis. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP), 10(06).
Pardede, S. (2022). Employment Law Industrial Revolution Perspective 4.0. International Asia Of Law and Money Laundering (IAML), 1(1), 47-56.
Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2019). Employment law for business. McGraw-Hill.
write