The founder of one of Nottingham's leading law firms did not discriminate against a pregnant paralegal who he sacked over benefit fraud suspicions. Ashish Bhatia, the boss of law firm Bhatia Best, in Carrington Street, Nottingham, had contested the action by the Solicitors Regulations Authority (SRA), which ordered him to a disciplinary tribunal on the back of the employee tribunal years ago.
The panel of three heard argument before they found the allegation was not proved - that he had allegedly discriminated against ex-employee Miss Elaina Brown by treating her unfairly because of her pregnancy. But while the panel found against the SRA on that claim, it did find he failed to notify the Solicitors Regulations Authority (SRA) of the employment tribunal judgement.
He was reprimanded by the tribunal on that allegation alone, and ordered he pay costs of £1,000.
Gregory Treverton-Jones KC, representing Mr Bhatia at the SRA hearing, told the panel after their finding: "I don't know whether you find he honestly believed he had to report (the tribunal decision in Miss Brown's case) that may impact on sentence.
"This non-reporting is at the bottom of the scale, we would say. There was plainly no intent to conceal throughout, because you have the management board minutes and the matter was pubilicised in the local press. It wasn't as if this was concealed from the SRA deliberately.
"The proper sanction would be a modest fine for an offence of this sort".
Mr Bhatia's firm, which he founded in 1993, was taken to an employment tribunal by Miss Brown in 2019 - a woman he told the disciplinary hearing on Tuesday (March 29) he was like a "Fairy Godmother to" - but who he later sacked when he suspected benefit fraud - claims which turned out to be unfounded.
He sparked a fraud investigation into his employee's affairs. He told the SRA hearing the obligation was not to advise them (the Department of Work and Pensions) she had a different name, adding to the panel: "She could call herself Mickey Mouse if she wanted to. What was important was the fact she was married.
"What I understood was she had not reported she was married. They didn't know she had a married name. They only knew she was Elaina Brown".
Mr Bhatia put this to her in a meeting - where Miss Brown asserted she had done nothing wrong - and she had told them she was married - but Mr Bhatia wanted to see her award notification. She insisted there was no paperwork and it was done over the phone.
Mr Bhatia did not suspend her pending further investigation. He sacked her.
Miss Brown went to a tribunal and it upheld her complaint of maternity and pregnancy discrimination, after hearing how managing director Mr Bhatia had dismissed her without notice when she was pregnant with her fifth child.
Mr Bhatia paid her £50,000 and £30,000 in legal fees, and thought the matter was over.
Mr Treverton-Jones put his client forward as a caring, decent, honourable solicitor and boss. He went on to flag what he described as a "dozen serious errors in the factual findings in Miss Brown's tribunal".
"As I said, the judgement is sprinkled with very serious errors and they end up ducking the really important question they have to answer - which was, what were the principle reasons for the dismissal? And they did not say what it was," Mr Treverton-Jones had told the panel before they retired to decide judgement.
He said above all Mr Bhatia has "sought the truth" and "he has been frustrated at every turn". However, he added, Miss Brown had "lied" to Mr Bhatia on August 9, saying there was no documentation - a reference to Mr Bhatia's request for the award notification - and she had told him there was "no paperwork".
Eventually, the material was produced. Mr Treverton-Jones added it is a "lamentable history" - adding that the one party who has consistently tried to find the truth had been thwarted at every turn.
He referred to an email which was thought to have been tampered with. And he made reference to the award notification, produced by Miss Brown, had shown a massive fall in tax credit at a time, if declared, one would have thought there would have been an increase as her husband's earnings were no longer taken into account and she had an additional child.
"The upshot of all this, Mr Bhatia has suffered a real injustice," said Mr Treverton-Jones. "The firm, we submit, should have won its case in the employment case against Elaina. In fact, it lost, which has put his reputation and livelihood at risk.
"This tribunal has power to right the wrong, at least in part, as Mr Bhatia, in truth, is an ornament to his profession". Regarding reporting the tribunal's decision to the SRA, he said, earlier today (March 29) the panel may think Mr Bhatia had an honest belief that it did not have to be reported because he believed it had been "expunged".
According to the firm's website, Mr Bhatia has 40 years' experience in the law, founded the firm in 1993, and is the Managing Director. Responsibilities cover all regulatory compliance and quality assurance and he is the firm’s COLP, COFA, Complaints Handling Officer, and leads the management team in all financial & strategic decision making.
"Ash has championed access to justice and legal aid to defend and advance the legal rights of all including the vulnerable and least fortunate. He has served as President & Council Member of the local Law Society, Council Member of the National Law Society, 20 years as Chair of the Criminal Committee, on the MOJ Advisory Panel, and lead spokesman for Legal Associations. Contributions to Justice and the Profession led to awards; Solicitor of the Year, Special Achievement Award, and the Presidents Award".
READ NEXT:
