Case 2212748/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Dufeal v LSDM Limited RECORD OF A HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 2212748/2023
- Decision date
- 13 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr R Baber, Mr S Pearlman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Dufeal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr O Dufeal, who described his race as Black British, joined LSDM Limited as a customer service adviser on 6 December 2021, was promoted to team leader in June 2022, and later became deputy store manager designate in February 2023. He brought direct race discrimination and race harassment complaints about pay, an August 2022 health and safety incident, promotion decisions, driving duties, alleged comments about dismissal within two years, training, weekend working and the handling of his grievance and appeal. The tribunal directed itself to the Equality Act provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and to the burden of proof authorities it cited.
On the August 2022 angle-grinding incident, the tribunal found that the basement work had been zoned off, that the claimant knew the works were happening, and that Ms McNamara investigated and decided there was no unsafe working environment. It found no facts showing that race affected the response, no basis for saying a white employee would have been treated differently, and no reason to treat the absence of an apology as racially motivated. The related pay and driving allegations also failed: the claimant was paid at the correct shopfloor rate for his role, the dedicated delivery drivers were not appropriate comparators, and the driving duties were offered generally and were accepted voluntarily.
The tribunal rejected the allegation that Mr Sharp said employees with under two years' service could be easily dismissed. It also rejected the claim that Mr Sharp pressured the claimant to work weekends or to sign documents falsely confirming training. On the NAP folder, the tribunal found that the copy in the bundle was not the only version and that a more complete version likely existed; it accepted detailed evidence that the claimant received training from Mr Sharp and other managers on sales, stock, accounts, scheduling, HR processes, health and safety and related topics. It therefore found no race-related denial of training.
The September 2022 promotion complaint failed because Ms McNamara did not shortlist the claimant for the substantive West London Deputy Store Manager role due to his lack of retail and managerial experience, while Ricky Jenkins had more relevant experience. The June 2023 sign-off complaint also failed because the tribunal accepted the interview notes as broadly accurate and found that the claimant's sparse answers, not race, explained the decision not to sign him off immediately; Mr Edgar and Mr Sharp were both looking to promote him if possible and offered a six-week further review. All of the race harassment allegations were dismissed for the same reasons, and the grievance and appeal were not upheld.
Claims and outcomes
16 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim framed as a pay comparison with other drivers; the tribunal treated dedicated HGV delivery drivers as inappropriate comparators and found the claimant was paid the correct shopfloor rate for his role. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The reasons say the claimant actually applied for the substantive West London Deputy Store Manager role in September 2022, not a deputy manager designate role. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Martin v Devonshires Solicitors
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
- Weeks v Newham College
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.