I sued my boss for making me walk home late - woman wins indirect discrimination case for being placed at risk getting home

[IwantToRetire]

(I'm posting as this is quite an interesting outcome, althought realise not many will want to comment this later on 24th December, so more place marking for late comment.)

The 32-year-old was prepared her own case against her boss, Mohamed Lallmohamud, who runs an Indian takeaway. In her job, as a kitchen porter, she had to walk home after 11.30pm, because Lallmohamud often made her stay late.

In an employment tribunal decision published earlier this month, Athif argued as part of her case that because women face higher levels of harassment on the street, the fact that she had to walk home late amounted to discrimination.

Athif “was put at a disadvantage as she would have felt unsafe while she walked home after her shift, which would have caused her stress and anxiety,” the judgment added.

Athif, who speaks English as a second language and had no previous knowledge of the law, represented herself, having spent 32 hours preparing the case. Before the hearing, she had contacted a dozen lawyers — but all declined to represent her.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-had-to-walk-home-late-from-work-so-i-sued-my-boss-and-won-p2wml3bvc

Also available to read at https://archive.ph/RytJg

years ago I worked for a family run chain of pubs that had a rule that female bar staff could have a paid taxi home after 11 if they needed it. I think they felt they had a responsibility as employers.

I worked in retail several years ago and they use to close the front doors an hour before the store shut which meant staff had to leave from the back exit which was the car park. This area was isolated from the rest of the town. There were no cameras and several female staff were attacked. I told my male manager that I will not work till closing time as it was unsafe and he just didn’t get why!

My relative worked for a Cinema chain for years (and not one known for being great to its employees) - even they organised transport home for employees doing the close.

There's clearly a lot going on here, but I do agree that employers have a responsibility to employees - especially if they change working hours at the last minute (eg. if supposed to finish at 11, but don't finish until 1am, when there's no late buses, then providing a taxi is reasonable)

You realise that even educated people work late too, don't you?

Was she made to stay late beyond contractual working hours? Because if not, this is incredibly daft.

Should the Job Centres now be worried if they force a woman into taking this kind of job by threat of sanction

Perhaps this woman's energy could have been better spent in receiving an education and improving her skillset so that she could obtain a job that doesn't require her to be making her way home at 11.30pm.

What a load of reactionary BS.

Added to which, what does that say about your attitude towards women who for whatever reason, will never have the opportunity to gain the knowledge to do supposedly more intellectual 9-5 work.

Far better is to have a curfew for men. Lets deal with the source of the problem.

So much for having a forum called Feminism and Women's Rights!

I worked in the public sector and I was entitled to claim for a taxi if I was required to work beyond a certain time. I also worked in a night club finishing at 2am, the manager organised a taxi for everyone (male and female) we had to chip in to cover the cost but it was basically compulsory to use the taxi. I think it's pretty normal for employers to make an effort to ensure employees can get home safely if working late, and if your finish time is erratic it's going to be difficult to organise a lift or take a bus.

I've just read that decision. The late finishing was one element of several issues that made up the overall claim. Including that the guy assaulted her, withheld holiday pay, and refused to provide her with a contract. He also consistently kept her late after her agreed finish time, when she had been clear that she needed to finish at 11pm for her own safety. He then caused the tribunal to be adjourned 3 times, and didn't actually show up to the hearing when it went ahead. The claimabt was also awarded a prepeartion order in recognition of how mych extra work the reapindent cost her in delays. As far as shit bosses go, he deserved everything he got.

Maybe it's just me but I actually generally feel safer walking home at night after midnight than I would around 10. Fewer people around and it's easier to just avoid everyone you see. Not sure men are actually going out to wait around for people to attack, it's opportunistic and after midnight even the nasty ones tend to be in bed. Most of my experience with male violence has actually been in the daylight or earlier in the evening.

it seems like she was forced to work hours she did not initially agree to...but that would not make inflammatory enough headline

I know the headline didn't really deal with the different aspects of the case.

The big headline for me is that English was her second language and she educated herself about the law as now solicitor would represent her.

I'm surprised that firm that takes on a lot of sex discrimination cases didn't help her. But maybe she didn't contact them. They also do group actions which are less usual.

Whilst googling because I couldn't remember their name I see they work with Fawcett re equal pay https://www.leighday.co.uk/our-services/employment-law-claims-and-disputes/equal-pay/fawcett-society-equal-pay-advice-service-in-new-partnership-with-leigh-day-solicitors/

I agree, the claimant did a phenomenal job representing herself, she was very well prepared by the way the decision document reads.

It sounds like you were happy with the arrangement, but I doubt it was actually legal for the night club to make this 'basically compulsory'. Your employer has no legal right to control how you spend your money or your time outside of working hours. They can't insist on a particular method of you getting home and they can't insist that you pay for a specific means of getting home.

I doubt most employers in that sector are in a position to be so choosy.

So much to unpick there, but I’ll make two points. There are many reasons why women have to take jobs with unsociable hours including caring responsibilities. Many have to work around their partner, who will generally have their earning and career potential unaffected because of children, women often take jobs that are ‘below’ their educational attainment because the hours fit in with family life. I can’t take up my previous career because of school pick ups/commute/energy/time/headspace needed to fulfil my previous role etc., it also wouldn’t make economic sense for my husband to scale back his position to take up school pick ups and all the rest of it.

Another thing to consider is that many people who are improving their education have to do exactly the type of job in the article to be able to fund their education. I worked at McDonalds in order to fund my degree - sometimes I finished at 3am, luckily, they always provided taxis home.

That was in response to @Str8talkin

Rural here, and pubs always put on taxis to get staff home at night as there is no public transport after 6pm. It’s expected and any pub which didn’t offer it would struggle for staff even more than they do already.

So if you get into a car accident on your way to or from work, us the employer held responsible?

Having read the judgement, do you genuinely think this is now the case?