Introduction

The case of Sandhu v Enterprise Rent-A-Car Ltd ([2025] EWCA Civ 190) presents a multifaceted dispute arising from allegations of discrimination, harassment, and unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010. Ms. Sandhu, the appellant, brought claims before both the Employment Tribunal (ET) and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), contending that her dismissal was connected to her refusal to change reporting lines and was influenced by discriminatory conduct related to her father’s disability. The background of the case is complex, involving performance management, alleged incidents of unwanted conduct, and disputes over whether aggregated minor incidents could amount to harassment. The case is further complicated by the involvement of an “industrial jury,” composed of a legally qualified chair and lay members, which has traditionally been used in employment tribunal decisions, particularly in discrimination-related matters.

Ms. Sandhu’s claims focused on two broad groups of issues. The first related to unfair dismissal — notably, the reasons for her dismissal, procedural fairness and whether the employer had explored sanctions short of dismissal. The second concerned her allegations of discrimination and harassment on the basis of associative disability, given her father’s disability. These issues, along with evidentiary evaluations and the weight accorded to witness testimonies, constitute the core background against which the legal principles in the judgment have been developed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Employment Tribunal, after a detailed four-day hearing supplemented by further deliberations in chamber, concluded that Ms. Sandhu’s claims of harassment and discrimination not only lacked a sufficient evidential basis but also failed to establish a direct link to her father’s disability. The Tribunal found that the dismissal—although it raised issues of whether the performance management process was entirely fair—was, ultimately, based on the employee’s refusal to accept a change in reporting structure, which fell under the category of “some other substantial reason” (SOSR) rather than outright capability issues.

The key findings included that Ms. Sandhu was given ample opportunity to address her performance issues, that the alleged unwanted incidents (involving remarks by colleagues and email communication failures) were isolated both factually and contextually, and that any minor unwelcome conduct did not cumulatively meet the legal threshold for harassment. The ET carefully applied the principles of “but-for” causation and the aggregation of incidents, concluding that the burden of proof did not shift under the statutory requirements of the Equality Act 2010. Consequently, both the Employment Tribunal and the subsequent Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed her claims on points of law, with the Court of Appeal affirming that there was no legal error in the ET’s approach.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment extensively cites earlier decisions which help articulate when and how incidents should be aggregated to form a harassment claim. Notably, reference is made to HM Land Registry v Grant [2011] EWCA Civ 769 and the analysis in cases such as Qureshi v University of Manchester and Unite the Union v Nailard. The court underlined that while individual incidents must be assessed on their own merits, the overall context must also be considered. This dual-analysis approach was crucial in determining the “prohibited effect” under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010.

The Judgment also highlighted the importance of rule 62.5 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure (as enunciated in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250) to ensure that all issues, including relevant findings of fact and the application of the law, were clearly set out. By referencing these precedents, the court demonstrated that the threshold for aggregating borderline incidents requires more than a tick-box exercise; it necessitates assessing whether the totality of conduct reaches a legally significant level. This reinforces the view that isolated unsatisfactory events, even when numerically aggregated, are insufficient to trigger a legal inference of harassment if key contextual elements—particularly knowledge of the protected characteristic (in this case, a third party's disability)—are absent.

Legal Reasoning

In its reasoning, the court noted that the ET’s role was firstly to determine the factual basis for dismissal and then to categorise it within the statutory framework provided by the Employment Rights Act 1996 (specifically section 98) and the Equality Act 2010. The ET was required to identify the precise reason for the dismissal and to consider whether proper procedural safeguards and incremental disciplinary measures were observed by the employer.

An important dimension of the legal reasoning was the discussion over the “but-for” causation standard. The Judgment clarifies that for conduct to be deemed “related” to the disability of a third party, the actor must have actual knowledge of that disability—an element missing in the events involving Mr. Astill and Ms. Johal. The court also expressed its difficulty with aggregating isolated incidents when the relevant actors were unaware of the disability that was purported to be the basis of harassment.

On the subject of unfair dismissal, the court reaffirmed that even if some procedural deficiencies had occurred (such as not following an incremental sanction process or failing to warn Ms. Sandhu sufficiently), these did not necessarily amount to an overall unfair process when weighed against the employer’s reasonable band of responses. In short, the Tribunal’s step-by-step analysis—inclusive of alleged performance issues, discrepancies in reporting structures, and isolated unwelcome conduct—was found to be thorough, rational, and consistent with established employment law principles.

Impact

The Judgment is poised to have considerable impact in the realm of employment law. Its articulation of the need to consider aggregated conduct holistically, without mechanically adding up individual incidents, sets a clear precedent for future harassment claims. Employers and tribunals are reminded that the context—and especially the awareness of relevant protected characteristics—is critical in determining whether certain actions meet the statutory threshold for harassment.

For employment disputes involving performance management, the decision reinforces the principle that a dismissal based on “some other substantial reason” may be potentially fair even if certain procedural elements are in dispute. It stresses that the mere existence of minor deficiencies or isolated negative incidents does not override a reasonable procedural framework.

In addition, the case provides guidance on the proper use of “inference phrases” when assessing facts in harassment disputes, underscoring that if the relevant actors do not have sufficient knowledge of a third party’s disability, then drawing an inference of harassment would be legally unsustainable. This nuance will likely affect future litigation, compelling tribunals to articulate clearly their reasoning when evaluating whether the cumulative effect of conduct constitutes harassment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts featured prominently in the Judgment and may appear arcane at first glance. For example:

• Aggregation of Incidents: The idea that even if individual events are minor, they could collectively amount to harassment. The court clarifies that, without a demonstrable link (such as awareness of a relevant disability), these events should not automatically be aggregated.
• But-For Causation: This principle requires a clear causal link between the conduct and the alleged discriminatory impact. In this case, the ET’s findings emphatically state that without the knowledge of the protected characteristic, the “but-for” test fails, meaning the conduct is not “related” to the disability.
• Band of Reasonable Responses: This refers to whether an employer’s decision-making falls within a range of responses that a reasonable employer might adopt. The Tribunal determined that the dismissal, although unpopular with Ms. Sandhu, was within this band.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Court’s decision in Sandhu v Enterprise Rent-A-Car Ltd establishes an important legal precedent on two fronts. First, it clarifies that in harassment claims, particularly those involving third-party disabilities, evidence must clearly show that the alleged harassers had knowledge of the protected characteristic before any aggregation of incidents can be justified. Second, it reinforces that dismissals based on performance issues or refusal to adapt to corporate changes may be fair if they fall within the “band of reasonable responses,” even in the presence of minor procedural lapses.

The Judgment serves as a comprehensive guide to employment tribunals and advocates alike, emphasizing a nuanced, fact-specific approach when balancing the need for employee protection against employers’ legitimate operational requirements. It underscores the importance of context, the careful application of legal precedents, and the necessity for tribunals to ensure that each aspect of a claim is properly substantiated before drawing sweeping conclusions.

Overall, this decision will likely influence future cases by setting a robust framework for analyzing both harassment and unfair dismissal claims, ensuring that only conduct with a demonstrable discriminatory nexus is legally actionable and affirming that fair process remains central to employment dispute resolution.