Claimant v Lascaux Partners Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The First Respondent conceded unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair due to absence of proper process and flimsy historic allegations which would not have warranted dismissal.
Succeeded in relation to the 'lactating' comment by Mr Poole in Madrid. This was unwanted conduct related to sex that violated the claimant's dignity. All other harassment relating to sex claims failed.
Succeeded on five specific allegations: the dismissal itself; dismissing the claimant's internal appeal; finding Mr Poole's Madrid comments did not upset the claimant at the time; dismissing claim that allegations had never been made before dismissal; and failing to deal with discrimination/harassment allegations on 1 and 3 November 2023. The tribunal found the dismissal was materially influenced by the claimant making protected acts (allegations of discrimination).
All allegations of direct race discrimination were dismissed. While the tribunal found some inappropriate comments about the claimant's Mexican heritage had been made, these did not meet the threshold for direct discrimination.
All allegations of direct sex discrimination were dismissed. The tribunal did not find the claimant's lack of promotion or other treatment was because of her sex.
All allegations of harassment relating to race were dismissed, largely because they related to events before 24 May 2023 and were out of time.
Facts
The claimant, a highly successful Mexican-heritage recruitment consultant, was dismissed on 6 November 2023 after raising complaints of harassment and discrimination. She alleged a 'laddish' culture at the finance recruitment firm, including inappropriate comments about her ethnicity and sex. Key events included a work trip to Madrid in May 2023 where her line manager made inappropriate sexual comments ('lactating' remark), and a meeting on 1 November 2023 where she raised discrimination allegations and was summarily dismissed. The claimant had been frustrated at not being promoted to Director despite strong performance, while a male friend of the owners was hired directly into that role.
Decision
The tribunal upheld claims of unfair dismissal (conceded), harassment relating to sex (the 'lactating' comment), and victimisation in relation to the dismissal and appeal process. The tribunal found the dismissal was materially influenced by the claimant raising protected acts. However, claims of direct race and sex discrimination failed, as did most harassment claims. Time was extended only back to 24 May 2023. The tribunal found 25% contributory fault and that the claimant would likely have resigned in April 2024 after her bonus.
Practical note
Employers who dismiss shortly after an employee raises discrimination complaints face a very high hurdle to show the dismissal was unconnected, especially where the stated reasons are historic matters not previously addressed and where there has been no proper process.
Adjustments
Claimant's conduct including unexplained absences, poor attendance, disrespectful language to colleagues, and distracting junior staff contributed 25% to circumstances of dismissal, though this was partly in reaction to harassment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2219205/2023
- Decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 13
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Recruitment Consultant / Senior Associate
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister