In the first case of its kind in the UK, an Indian couple is claiming unfair constructive dismissal from their legal jobs due to caste-based discrimination.
Because of the precedent-setting nature of the lawsuit, Home Secretary Theresa May is believed to be watching the case carefully and considering whether to add a section covering caste to the UK’s equality legislation.
The case centres on Vijay Begraj, who is Hindu and belongs to the Dalits or ‘Untouchables’, India’s lowest caste, and his wife Amardeep, who is Sikh and comes from the higher Jats caste. They claim that they were discriminated against by their bosses at Coventry-based solicitors firm Heer Manak on the basis of their differing social and religious backgrounds.
According to the Daily Mail, Begraj, the company’s former practice manager, was sacked after seven years of service in 2010 and his wife, a former solicitor there, resigned in January this year.
They are both claiming unfair constructive dismissal, unauthorised deduction of wages, unpaid holiday pay, race discrimination, breach of contract, discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief and failure to provide a statement of the terms and conditions of employment.
Although their former employer denied the claims, dubbing them “outrageous”, Mrs Begraj told the employment tribunal that, once her bosses found out that the couple were in love, she was handed more work than she could cope with, given reduced help from support staff such as secretaries and paid less than her colleagues.
Referring to one conversation with a senior business manager, she claimed: “He said I should reconsider the step I was taking of marrying Vijay because he was of a different caste. People of Vijay’s caste were different creatures. Marriage would be very different from dating.”
Although neither she nor her husband discussed the relationship with their bosses, she added that management was definitely aware of it. “Vijay was told a number of times that his position had been compromised for entering into a relationship with me,” she said.
At one informal meeting Mrs Begraj was also told she would have no secretarial support, which she believed was a form of punishment.
In December 2007, she was involved in a major car accident, however, which meant that she was unable to work for eight months. But when in July 2008 she returned to the workplace for a ‘back-to-work’ meeting, Mrs Begraj claimed that her bosses were reluctant for her to return in case she was planning a family.
The defendants’ lawyer Andrew Marshall suggested that her unhappiness sprang more from the fact that the meeting “could have been handled in a more sympathetic manner”, however. The case continues.
