Case 2201170/2019 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Ms A Joaquim & (2) Ms K Garcia Ferrus v Aramark Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201170/2019
- Decision date
- 29 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms JF Tombs, Mr D Carter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Ms A Joaquim & (2) Ms K Garcia Ferrus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central on 26-29 November 2019 before Employment Judge Baty sitting with Ms JF Tombs and Mr D Carter. The judgment records that the claimants, Ms A Joaquim and Ms K Garcia Ferrus, brought complaints of direct race, sex and age discrimination against Aramark Ltd.
The tribunal stated that all three discrimination complaints failed. No further factual findings or legal reasoning are set out in the written judgment because the reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and the note records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal also made a costs award of £500 payable by the claimants on a joint and several basis to the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the claimants' complaint of direct race discrimination failed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the claimants' complaint of direct sex discrimination failed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the claimants' complaint of direct age discrimination failed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.