Cases3310565/2023

Claimant v Lidl Great Britain Limited

9 October 2025Before Employment Judge FreshwaterNorwichin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

None of the actions taken by the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The respondent did not behave in such a way that was calculated or likely to destroy or damage the trust and confidence between the claimant and the respondent. The claimant's culture was taken into account and the respondent's policy on unwanted touching was fair in the context of a UK workplace.

Direct Discrimination(sex)failed

To the extent that the claimant was treated differently to the previous male store manager (EF) it was due to the difference in management style and clashing of personalities rather than because the claimant was female. The tribunal found that the claimant was treated in exactly the same way as a male store manager would have been in the same circumstances.

Harassment(sex)failed

To the extent that there was unwanted conduct towards the claimant, it was not related to her sex. The unwanted conduct was related to her management style and the difficulties in implementing change, not her sex.

Indirect Discrimination(race)failed

The respondent had a PCP requiring staff not to engage in unwanted touching of other colleagues, but this did not put Portuguese people at a particular disadvantage. There was no evidence that Portuguese people generally touch others in the workplace in the way shown in the CCTV footage. The respondent specifically found the touching was not sexual harassment.

Facts

The claimant was a Portuguese store manager who took over a Lidl store in January 2023. She implemented significant changes to improve compliance, which created friction with staff. A deputy store manager complained that the claimant had touched his knee twice during a meeting, which was captured on CCTV. The claimant was suspended, investigated, and given a first written warning for unwanted physical contact (but not sexual harassment). The claimant resigned claiming constructive dismissal and raised claims of sex and race discrimination based on cultural differences and alleged collusion by staff.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence: the respondent acted reasonably in investigating and sanctioning unwanted touching, the claimant's Portuguese culture was considered, and the policy against unwanted touching was legitimate. The tribunal found no sex or race discrimination: difficulties with staff arose from management style rather than protected characteristics, and there was no evidence that Portuguese workplace norms included the type of physical contact shown on CCTV.

Practical note

Cultural context must be considered in workplace conduct cases, but employers can legitimately enforce policies against unwanted physical contact regardless of cultural norms, provided the investigation is fair and the conduct found is objectively inappropriate.

Legal authorities cited

Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867Leeds Dental Team Ltd v Rose [2014] ICR 94Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] ICR 1065

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.19Equality Act 2010 s.23Equality Act 2010 s.136Equality Act 2010 s.26Employment Rights Act 1996 s.95Equality Act 2010 s.4Equality Act 2010 s.13

Case details

Case number
3310565/2023
Decision date
9 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
9
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Store Manager
Service
4 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister