Mr K Newman v Mr R Lyons — 2023

The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Ms Huang, other managers and staff, and applied the Equality Act burden of proof authorities including s.136, Efobi, Igen and Madarassy. It accepted that Ms Huang managed in a strict and demanding way, but held that the evidence did not show that her criticism and monitoring of the claimant on issues 1 to 8 was related to race. The tribunal found that some criticisms of the claimant's work were made, including comments about her voice, performance and interaction with customers, and that Ms Huang called her 'Joyce' on two occasions, but it found the name mistake unintentional and the other conduct explained by work standards rather than race.

The tribunal also found that the allegation that Ms Huang threatened demotion at a meeting on 2 April 2022 was not made out: the recorded discussion was with Ms Kacinskaite and amounted to a suggestion that the claimant do a couple of shifts as a runner to improve her knowledge of the food. It accepted that the claimant perceived the conduct complained of in issues 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 8 as hostile, but concluded that it was not reasonable to regard it as race-related and that the harassment related to race complaint therefore failed. On the same reasoning, the direct discrimination because of race complaint failed.

On issue 9, the tribunal found that Ms Huang said the claimant looked tired and unpresentable and should wear make-up next time. It held that this was unwanted conduct related to sex, that the claimant perceived it as humiliating, and that it was reasonable for it to have that effect. The complaint of harassment related to sex was therefore well founded. Because of that finding, the direct discrimination because of sex complaint failed. Remedies for the successful complaint were not determined in this judgment and were left for agreement or a further hearing.