Claimant v Asda Stores Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the comment in the Occupational Health referral about the claimant having a large family with 10 children could not amount to detrimental treatment or less favourable treatment. There was nothing to suggest a man in similar circumstances would have been treated differently and no reason why the treatment related to her sex.
The tribunal found the allegation that the manager lied during the grievance investigation had no reasonable prospect of success. There was a clear distinction between the grievance allegation and what was in the referral. Even if the manager had lied, the claimant could not establish it amounted to less favourable treatment on grounds of sex.
The tribunal found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that the Grievance Officer failed to investigate properly. There was extensive investigation and whilst the Officer did not access the referral itself, he did not need to and this did not amount to less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. There was no connection between any treatment and the claimant's sex.
The tribunal found the rejection of the grievance in October 2023 was because the Officer was satisfied there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations. He was entitled to reach that decision and it could not amount to less favourable treatment on grounds of the claimant's sex.
Facts
The claimant, a Section Leader at ASDA since 2007, brought sex discrimination claims relating to an Occupational Health referral in March 2023 which mentioned she had a large family with 10 children, and the subsequent handling of her grievance about this. She alleged her manager lied during the grievance investigation, the grievance officer failed to properly investigate, and the rejection of her grievance was discriminatory. She remained employed throughout.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all sex discrimination claims as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found the mention of her family in the OH referral could not amount to detrimental or less favourable treatment, there was no evidence the manager lied, the grievance was properly investigated, and there was no connection between any treatment and the claimant's sex. The tribunal exercised its discretion to strike out to avoid wasting tribunal time and respondent costs on a meritless claim.
Practical note
A reference to family circumstances in an Occupational Health referral, without more, cannot ground a sex discrimination claim where there is no evidential basis to show the treatment was because of sex or that a comparator would have been treated differently.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002325/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Section Leader
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No