British Airways Vindicated in Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal Case

In Jamaluddin v British Airways & Others, the Employment Tribunal (ET) found that a British Airways (BA) pilot who had his airside pass withdrawn after he was arrested for alleged money laundering offences was not a victim of discrimination and was not unfairly dismissed.



Mr Jamaluddin, who held the rank of Senior First Officer in the airline’s long haul fleet at Heathrow Airport, was arrested in 2007 for alleged offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 following a police anti-terrorism investigation.



As a result of the police enquiry, BA suspended Mr Jamaluddin’s airside pass until the situation was clarified. Eventually, the police notified him that he would not be charged with any offence and that no further action would be taken against him.



Following an internal investigation, however, BA concluded that there would be a significant security risk were Mr Jamaluddin to continue to hold a pass. This was permanently withdrawn, effectively ending his flying career. As an alternative, BA agreed that he could search for a role within the airline that did not require him to hold a pass or have access to sensitive information. Failure to secure an alternative job would result in his dismissal, however. Mr Jamaluddin’s search for an alternative post proved unsuccessful and he was diagnosed with depression. He was subsequently given three months’ notice of termination and his employment ended in October 2010.



Mr Jamaluddin, a British born Muslim man of Indian parents, brought various claims including unfair dismissal, direct and indirect discrimination on the ground of his race and/or religion and disability discrimination because of his depression. The ET dismissed his claims, however.



In the ET’s view, the case dealt with a ‘unique and unprecedented set of circumstances’ in which the timing of events was often outside BA’s control. In the circumstances, the company had a duty to pursue the matters which ultimately led to Mr Jamaluddin’s dismissal and had acted in a way that was proportionate in so doing. Nor was there any evidence to support a claim of victimisation. Whilst expressing sympathy for his plight, after consideration of all the facts the ET concluded that neither race nor religion had been a material factor in the way he was treated. The internal appeals procedure had been conducted objectively and independently. Furthermore, the decision to dismiss him if no alternative role were found was taken before he was diagnosed with depression and his eventual dismissal took into account the available medical evidence. Adjustments to accommodate his medical condition were considered and made where appropriate but it would have been unreasonable to expect BA to extend indefinitely the period within which to search for alternative employment. The airline had not, therefore, discriminated against Mr Jamaluddin on the ground of disability and the dismissal procedure itself had been carried out in a way that was fair and reasonable.