Claimant v L Rowland & Co (Retail) Ltd

Withdrawn by claimant as she had insufficient qualifying service to pursue such a claim.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant had no real basis for suggesting that events related to her race. The evidence was not compelling and the tribunal could not detect anything suggesting she was discriminated against on grounds of race. Her perception was not supported by objective evidence.

The tribunal found that there was no objective basis to demonstrate discrimination on grounds of religion. While the claimant genuinely believed she was discriminated against, the evidence did not support this, including incidents about Christmas celebrations and questions about her beliefs.

The tribunal found that incidents such as the 'Christmas tree' comment and other workplace interactions were innocuous. While the claimant was sensitive to comments, the tribunal concluded it was not reasonable for the conduct to have the effect of violating her dignity or creating a hostile environment.

The tribunal accepted that questions about the claimant's religion and use of the phrase 'Daughter of Sarah' occurred, but found these were not repeated, not part of a pattern, and it was not reasonable for them to constitute harassment. At most they were gauche remarks.

The tribunal found that on 18 December 2023 the claimant made a protected act by alleging race discrimination. The manager Miss Elliott then told her to leave and take her belongings, effectively dismissing her. This was followed by a sham AWOL process. The tribunal concluded the protected act had a significant influence on the dismissal and subsequent treatment, constituting victimisation.

The tribunal found the claimant was owed 5.25 hours of accrued but unpaid holiday pay. The company's own records showed 74.25 hours accrued but only 69 hours were paid. The respondent led no evidence to explain the discrepancy, so the claim succeeded.