Claimant v D&D London Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out claims relating to holiday denial on business needs grounds and comments about claimant being 'very quick' as having no reasonable prospect of success, as these were not sufficiently connected to age or were legitimate business decisions.
Claim regarding not being invited to New Year's Eve Countdown party and hiring of younger receptionist instead of transferring claimant were allowed to proceed, suggesting arguable age discrimination. Other claims regarding workload struck out as having no reasonable prospect.
Pay disparity claim with male comparator Stephen allowed to proceed as arguably sex discrimination. Claims regarding passing work, intimidation, and management comments struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, likely due to insufficient evidence connecting them to sex.
Claims about not being invited to party allowed to proceed. Claims about various comments from unidentified people and alleged surveillance struck out as having no reasonable prospect, likely because the comments were not sufficiently related to age or evidence was too vague.
Some harassment claims struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that many alleged comments from unidentified staff about exploitation and deception were not sufficiently connected to sex as a protected characteristic.
All allegations of victimisation harassment allowed to proceed to full hearing. The tribunal did not strike out these claims at preliminary stage.
Most claims for other payments allowed to proceed except claim 2D regarding unpaid wages from additional weekend guest demands, which was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Facts
The claimant worked as a toilet attendant/cleaner at the respondent's restaurant. She alleged multiple instances of age and sex discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and wage deductions. Key allegations included pay disparity with male comparator Stephen, excessive workload, not being invited to the New Year's Eve party, being passed over for a receptionist role in favour of a younger person, and various comments allegedly made by staff and management about her work and treatment.
Decision
The tribunal struck out numerous claims under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success, particularly those based on vague allegations about comments from unidentified people. However, claims regarding pay disparity with male comparator, exclusion from the party, and failure to transfer to receptionist role were allowed to proceed, along with victimisation claims and most wage claims.
Practical note
Discrimination claims based on allegations of comments by unidentified persons or general workplace treatment are vulnerable to strike-out at preliminary hearing if there is insufficient evidence connecting the treatment to a protected characteristic.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2210291/2023
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- toilet attendant/cleaner
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep