Claimant v Swansea Audio Limited t/a Coyote Ugly

The tribunal was unable to make findings of fact due to insufficient and unclear evidence. Additionally, these complaints (4.1 to 4.8) were out of time even after ACAS early conciliation extension, and the tribunal did not consider there was a basis to extend time on just and equitable grounds.

Insufficient evidence regarding Ms Fitzsimmons' alleged comment on 26 November 2022 about waiting for a beer (issue 4.9). The tribunal was unable to make findings of fact.

Insufficient evidence regarding Ms Fitzsimmons allegedly ignoring the claimant (issue 4.10). The tribunal was unable to make findings of fact.

Ms Freeman's comment on 4 November 2022 about not passing the microphone to the claimant was related to her accent and therefore her nationality. It was unwanted conduct which had the effect of humiliating the claimant or creating an offensive environment for her. The tribunal found this constituted unlawful harassment related to nationality.

Insufficient evidence regarding the respondent's failure to speak to Ms Freeman after the claimant complained (issue 4.12). The tribunal was unable to make findings of fact.

Insufficient evidence regarding Ms Fitzsimmons allegedly putting CVs with Asian-sounding names in the bin (issue 4.13). The tribunal was unable to make findings of fact.

Ms Fitzsimmons dismissed the claimant on 31 December 2022 and made remarks linking the dismissal to the claimant's nationality, including that the claimant may have been sending money to family in Brazil and could have been doing this for some time. The tribunal found the dismissal was related to the claimant's nationality and constituted unlawful harassment. It was unwanted conduct which violated the claimant's dignity or created a proscribed environment for her.

Insufficient evidence regarding dismissal of the claimant's appeal (issue 4.15). The tribunal was unable to make findings of fact.

Insufficient evidence that Mr Morris telling the claimant she could not return to the Liverpool venue was related to her nationality (issue 4.16). The tribunal was unable to make findings of fact.

Issue 10.1 (dismissal on 31 December 2022) had already been found to be an act of unlawful harassment, and therefore could not also succeed as an act of direct discrimination.

Insufficient evidence regarding dismissal of the claimant's appeal by Mr Morris (issue 10.2). The tribunal was unable to make findings of fact.

Insufficient evidence that Mr Morris telling the claimant she could not return to the Liverpool venue was direct discrimination (issue 10.3). The tribunal was unable to make findings of fact, and there was no evidence this was because of the claimant's nationality.

The tribunal found the claimant did make a protected act on 11 November 2022 when she complained to Mr Boreham about discrimination. However, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the raising of the protected act materially influenced Ms Fitzsimmons to dismiss the claimant on 31 December 2022 (issue 17.1).

The evidence (from transcripts of meetings on 23 and 25 January 2023) did not support a finding that Mr Morris's decision to dismiss the claimant's appeal was materially influenced by her making the protected act (issue 17.2).

There was no evidence that Mr Morris telling the claimant she could not return to the Liverpool venue was because of the protected act (issue 17.3). The tribunal was unable to make findings of fact.