Claimant v Harvey Jones Ltd (in administration)
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of age. For example, regarding comment 'coz you're old' by Nawaz Salauddin, tribunal found he would make same comment to anyone older than him (including people below age 39). Regarding James Deverell's alleged conduct, tribunal found he was already aware claimant had worked 20+ years, so no change in treatment based on finding out her age. No evidence from which to infer age discrimination.
Tribunal rejected claims on facts or found no less favourable treatment because of race. For example, regarding 'where are you from' question by Salauddin, tribunal not satisfied it occurred. Regarding same question by Deverell, tribunal found reason was not race but that claimant had raised it as complaint. Regarding dismissal, tribunal found decision maker was CEO Darren Woolsgrove and reason was performance, not race. Actual comparators Louisa Soulsby and Grace Murray were not appropriate due to material differences (different region, different manager).
Tribunal rejected claims on facts or found no less favourable treatment because of sex. Regarding interview complaints against Rohim Ali, tribunal found insufficient contemporaneous evidence and claims not raised during employment. Regarding Nawaz Salauddin's comments about dress/footwear, tribunal rejected on facts or found reason was assertion of managerial authority, not sex. Regarding James Deverell's comments about Tinder/Love Island, tribunal found no evidence he would not make same comments to male colleague.
Tribunal rejected sexual harassment claims. For example, Rohim Ali touching crotch during training was found not sexual in nature but because he was uncomfortable. James Deverell's alleged leering/staring at breasts was rejected on facts. The hug allegation was rejected on facts. Comment about lunch/Tinder was found not unwanted conduct, not sexual in nature, and did not create requisite hostile environment under s26 Equality Act.
Harassment related to sex claims failed. For example, Nawaz Salauddin's flip-flop comment was found not related to sex but about asserting managerial authority, and claimant's reaction was anger/irritation not perception of hostile environment. James Deverell's Tinder/Love Island comments found not unwanted (claimant participated in casual personal conversations), not related to sex (not female-specific), and claimant did not perceive them as creating hostile environment at the time (only complained months later after probation review).
Tribunal found only two protected acts: conversation with Ryan Tuckwell on 1 September 2022 and complaint to Maria Mayell on 15 November 2022. All alleged detriments failed. For example, James Deverell's comments on 20 September about grievance process were to resolve issues informally, not because of protected act. Holding probation review 19 days early was because he held designer meetings at end of month, not due to protected act. Dismissal decision by CEO Darren Woolsgrove was due to performance, not protected acts. No evidence protected acts had significant influence on any alleged detriments.
Facts
Ms Janjua worked as a Sales Designer at Harvey Jones Ltd (a handmade kitchen company) for under 6 months from July to December 2022. She was dismissed on 1 December 2022 during her probation period. She was based at the Marlow showroom as the sole designer. Her Regional Sales Manager was initially Rohim Ali then James Deverell from August 2022. She complained about her Sales Administrator Nawaz Salauddin and later about Mr Deverell. The tribunal found she had a tendency to misinterpret situations and see conspiracies where none existed, including making unfounded connections between Mr Deverell and a recruitment consultant based solely on both being associated with Teesside.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims of age, race, and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, harassment related to sex, and victimisation. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for underperformance (having made only 2 sales in nearly 6 months), not for discriminatory reasons. Most allegations were rejected on their facts. Where facts were established, the tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of protected characteristics. Only two protected acts were upheld but no causal link established between these and alleged detriments. The tribunal was critical of the claimant's tendency to misinterpret events and draw unfounded inferences.
Practical note
A claimant's subjective belief that treatment is discriminatory is insufficient without objective evidence from which a tribunal can infer discrimination; tribunals will carefully scrutinize credibility where a claimant demonstrates a pattern of misinterpreting events and seeing conspiracies without evidential foundation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303048/2023
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Sales Designer
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No