Claimant v GBT Travel Services UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out by Employment Judge Slater on 13 March 2024 because the claimant did not have the required two years of continuous service.
Dismissed following a preliminary hearing on 10 January 2025 before Employment Judge Butler, who ruled that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The claimant's reconsideration application was refused on 6 March 2025.
The Tribunal found that the PCP of requiring employees to take many telephone calls in English did put non-native English speakers generally at a disadvantage, and put the claimant specifically at a disadvantage. However, the respondent justified the PCP as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of servicing clients in English. There was no less discriminatory way to achieve this necessary business requirement.
Facts
Miss Nazirova, an Azerbaijani national whose first language was not English, was employed as a Travel Counsellor by GBT Travel Services UK Ltd from January 2023 to February 2024. She struggled with the telephone-based work, particularly on the demanding Goldman Sachs account, for multiple reasons including her limited English fluency, health issues (tinnitus/ENT problems), and stress. She was given extra support and completed her probationary period in September 2023. She resigned in January 2024 following a disciplinary warning (unrelated to her performance) citing unfair treatment and bullying.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed all claims. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of qualifying service. The disability discrimination claims were dismissed at an earlier preliminary hearing. The indirect race discrimination claim succeeded on the issues of group disadvantage and individual disadvantage (non-native English speakers being disadvantaged by requirement to take many calls in English) but failed because the respondent justified the PCP as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of servicing clients in English, with no less discriminatory alternative available.
Practical note
Language requirements in customer-facing telephone roles may constitute indirect race discrimination against non-native speakers, but will be justified where fluent English communication is genuinely necessary for the job and no reasonable alternative exists.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2400757/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Travel Counsellor
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No