An IT employee receives a payment after she had sued her British employers for discrimination because they did not let her work from Pakistan remotely.
Tehmina Akhtar suggested that she worked remotely from a rural area near the city of Lahore and said that she was too anxious to only fly the more than 5,000 miles back to the UK after a two -year career break.
Her request came despite her earlier marking concerns about poor internet and inconsistent electricity in the area, heard an employment tribunal in Manchester.
She lost her case for discrimination, but stands in line for a payment after the tribunal discovered that she was unfairly fired because bosses did not reported her enough to come across the bag about the issue.
The tribunal heard how the travel company refused the WFH request from Miss Akhtar and said it was not 'appropriate' because after such a long break she had to be trained again in his Cheshire office -and also quoted the connectivity problems she called herself .
The software developer did not turn in person to go back to work in the UK, as asked and was therefore fired. She then complained for discrimination against the disabled and unfair dismissal.
The tribunal ruled that refusing to let her work from Pakistan was not discriminatory and said it was not the fear of Akhtar who led to this refusal (as she had claimed).
It also accepted the need for her to return to the UK for reoping after a two -year break.
But it thought that the company did not give Miss Akhtar Enough warning that she might be fired if she did not return to the UK.
Chester House in the city of Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, the headquarters of Calrom Ltd where Tehmina Akhtar worked as a software developer
Her employers set up an e -mail and told her that she would be fired if she was not in the UK and was ready to work at the end of her career break – but did not send it until they knew that would be impossible for her .
And employment judge Helen Cookson said they have not considered alternatives to dismiss her and had not explained their worries sufficiently.
She explained: 'We accepted that [Calrom] had a good reason to doubt the feasibility of [Miss Akhtar]The proposal to work from home from Pakistan.
'But given that this suggestion had been called [her] To give her the chance to explain what she said had changed or to bring out other mitigating factors or even to bring out other obvious suggestions. '
With the panel that is concluded that it was released unfairly, it will now be compensated – but the amount is determined at a later time.
Miss Akhtar was a net developer for Calrom Limited – who offers and develops software between July 2017 and August 2022 for airlines in the city of Wilmslow.
In April 2020, near the start of the Covid Pandemie, she was relieved.
She previously had a panic attack on work and after quoting 'weak health' she was allowed to take an unpaid career brush from August 2020.
This would end on January 31, 2021, but she asked to expand it to complete an 'online language course' that she said it was 'favorable for my well -being'.
This was allowed, but in May she asked to renew the break again until January 2022 – this time because of her health, she said.
Including her time on leave, this extension would bring its total time without work to almost two years – from April 2020 to January 2022.
Miss Akhtar was warned that it was unlikely that further expansion would be granted.
She was also told that she would have to train again on her return considering the length of the break she would have had.
The software developer went to Pakistan in December 2021 – a month before her break would end – “to be with her family.”
In January 2022, when she would go back to work, she told the company that she was worried about that.
She asked to work from home at the moment – but added: 'I would like to bring the attention that working from Pakistan would bring some challenges, because I live in a small town with a limited infrastructure.
“There may be a number of unexpected problems with internet connection, problems with internet speed or electricity downtime during the day.”
The company said that working from Pakistan was not an option ' – but lets her expand her career break to August instead.
This took her total free time to almost two and a half years.
When August approached, she told the bosses that she could not travel to the UK without her parents – but did not succeed in requesting their visa on time or arranging travel.
Her employers have set her an e -mail and say she would be fired if she was not in the UK and was ready to work on 1 September – but it did not send until they knew that it would be impossible for her.
It said: “We have already collectively agreed that it is not an option to work from Pakistan from 1 September … Due to the limited infrastructure of the city in which you are currently located and unexpected interruptions to the internet connection.”
Miss Akhtar replied, as her employer explained, said: 'The factors she had previously referred by explaining why she could not work in Pakistan from home was no longer applicable because there would not be there [be] Electricity malfunctions now was over the summer and the internet in the area had improved. '
She said this meant that she could temporarily work from home in Pakistan after full -time on 1 September.
But on August 31, the company e -mailed to say that they did not get her back to work in the UK as her resignation.
