Claimant v Marks and Spencer PLC

The claimant complained she was not paid sick pay for absence in March/April 2018. However, the claimant accepted in cross-examination that race played no part in the decision to withhold pay. The non-payment stemmed from a misunderstanding about her pre-1987 contract and was reversed once the error was identified. The tribunal found this was management error, not discrimination.

The claimant complained she was not paid sick pay and was moved to the shop floor without discussion when her team closed, unlike her male colleague Kevin Morrissey who was consulted. The tribunal found the difference in treatment was because she had a different line manager at the time due to her grievance, not because of her sex. The claimant also accepted sex played no part in the sick pay decision.

The claimant complained that when her systems team was closed, her white male colleague was given a discussion about preferred roles but she was moved to the sales floor without consultation. The tribunal found the difference was because she was temporarily working under a different manager due to her grievance, not because of race. The failure to consult stemmed from management and HR failures, not discrimination.

Same facts as race discrimination claim regarding team closure. The tribunal found that even if the burden shifted (which it did not), the reason for different treatment was that the claimant had a different line manager at the relevant time due to her grievance, not her sex. Management simply failed to ensure her temporary manager was aware of or dealt with the situation.