Claimant v Atyab Al Marshoud Co Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant's actual comparator (Mr Shehata) was in materially different circumstances, and the claimant was not treated less favourably because of her race or nationality. The respondent gave preferential treatment to high-value customers, not specifically Kuwaiti nationals. Even if the burden had shifted, the respondent had a legitimate explanation concerning the claimant's conduct during the 31 July 2024 incident.
While the tribunal accepted on balance of probabilities that Ms Rawlings made racist comments about various ethnic groups (Sudanese, Moroccan, North African, Egyptian), it found these comments were not objectively capable of having the prescribed effect. The comments were not directed at the claimant, she failed to document them contemporaneously despite being asked to do so, she only raised them after disciplinary proceedings commenced, and no specific dates were provided for when they occurred.
Facts
The claimant, a sales associate of mixed Tunisian/Italian heritage, was employed at a high-end perfume store in Knightsbridge for 11 months. She alleged her Sudanese/Syrian store manager made racist comments about various ethnic groups including North Africans. On 31 July 2024, there was a protracted altercation with a customer who insisted on speaking Arabic. The claimant was repeatedly asked to go to the back office to de-escalate the situation but repeatedly returned to the shop floor. She was dismissed following a disciplinary process for inappropriate conduct towards the customer and failing to follow managerial instructions.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. While accepting the racist comments were likely made, they were not objectively capable of harassing the claimant as they were not directed at her, she failed to document them when asked, and only raised them after disciplinary proceedings began. The direct discrimination claim failed because the claimant's comparator was in materially different circumstances, and the respondent had a legitimate non-discriminatory explanation for the dismissal based on her conduct during the customer altercation.
Practical note
An employee with less than two years' service cannot transform what is essentially an unfair dismissal claim into a discrimination claim without establishing clear evidence that the protected characteristic was the reason for less favourable treatment; mere dissatisfaction with process or outcome is insufficient.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6013113/2024
- Decision date
- 30 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Sales Associate
- Service
- 11 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No