Mr C Khan, counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

The tribunal heard a race discrimination case brought by Ms Cheryl Spragg against Richemont UK Ltd. It found that the claimant had worked for the respondent since 2006 and that the relevant complaints arose out of the integration of Montblanc finance into Richemont, subsequent recruitment decisions, and later grievance handling. The tribunal also addressed time limits, holding that it could treat the recruitment and grievance matters as a continuing act, and it found the claimant had been aware of tribunal time limits because she had had solicitors' advice since 2013.

On the controller vacancies, the tribunal found a lack of transparency, no structured shortlisting process, no interview records, and a preference for white continental Europeans. It upheld the race discrimination claim on the failure to shortlist the claimant for the controller role and on the maternity-cover vacancy, where HR and line management knew or should have known that she was interested in the role but she was not alerted before Ms Piedad Diez Roman was appointed. On the June 2015 controller vacancy, the tribunal accepted that the shortlisting process was discriminatory, but the majority rejected the contention that the claimant would have been appointed if interviewed.

The tribunal also upheld direct race discrimination in relation to the grievance process. It found that at the grievance pre-meeting Ms Charlene Saint-Cast told the claimant it might be better for her to look for another job and that she should not go too far back in her grievance because it would take too long. It found the grievance outcome and appeal were handled in a mechanistic and dismissive way, with inadequate notes and insufficient sensitivity to a race discrimination complaint, and treated issues (z), (dd) and (ee) as direct race discrimination. Most of the remaining day-to-day allegations, including the Global Blue invitation, phone settings, lunch invitations, chair and desk allegations, and the Christmas Eve call, were rejected.

The only harassment finding was issue (w), the lift incident on 24 May 2016. The tribunal found that Mr Burgess led three colleagues in walking past the lift as the claimant held the door open, and that this was deliberate, humiliating and offensive conduct related to race. All other harassment allegations failed. The tribunal also accepted the victimisation claim in respect of the requirement to delete the CCTV footage and the threat of disciplinary action, and in respect of covert surveillance commissioned after Mr Kevin Boltman saw the claimant at a festival while she was off sick. It found the surveillance was disproportionate and intrusive, drew an adverse inference from the missing instructions to the surveillance company, and held that the respondent acted because it knew the claimant had done or might do protected acts.

This judgment records liability only and contains no monetary award. The tribunal therefore did not make any remedy findings in this decision.